Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

"Class struggle"

"Critics of New World Order conspiracy theories accuse its proponents of conspiracism; that is, having a paranoid world view that centrally places conspiracy theories in the unfolding of history, rather than class struggle" is a very odd sentence. Possibly, left-wing critics accuse the theory of not paying due attention to "class struggle". I have a hard time imagining non-Marxist people saying so. Barnsoldat91 (talk) 11:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I've rephrased that. --Loremaster (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section

I've created the stub for a much-need criticism section in order to begin to process of making article more neutral. Expanding this section should be the greatest priority of the contributors to this article. --Loremaster (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia:Criticism sections page:

“ Criticism sections can be found in many Wikipedia articles. While sometimes appropriate, this structure is not optimal, as relegating all criticisms to one section usually results in an unbalanced presentation. When present, such sections should be considered a temporary solution until the article is restructured to integrate criticism into each relevant section. It may then be desirable to have a "General criticisms" section near the end of the article, for those points which did not neatly fit anywhere else. ”

--Loremaster (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The current quote in this section is critical about conspiracy theories in general. Extending it to a criticism of NWO is WP:SYN. A quote specifically discussing the problem with NWO theories and/or NWO theorists would be preferable.

Further, I'm not sure how necessary a criticism section is for this article because, as I'm interpreting it, it is not an organized collected theory that may be refuted, but a categorization of theories. In such a case, this article should merely be cataloging the theories, as opposed to arguing them. Further, as this article deals with WP:FRINGE topics, you'll often not find records of reliable sources criticisms the concepts presented here. But without some major reorganization/rewrite for reasons of NPOV, WP:Weasel, and WP:V, I see nothing wrong with the section sticking around for now. -Verdatum (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree about the problem with the quote so I will remove it. However, I disagree with the notion that the New World Order conspiracy theory is immune to criticisms simply because it is (supposedly) only a categorization of theories. Even if this article was merely cataloging theories, it would still benefit from also cataloging criticisms of these theories. Although I agree that there are some fringe theories that have not generated criticisms from reliable sources, many mainstream academics and journalists (such as Damian Thompson) have written critically on many of them. I will work on finding as many as possible. --Loremaster (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added criticisms to the sections onr Anti-Masonry and Christian theories. I think we should now focus on finding criticisms for the section on the Council of Foreign Relations theory. --Loremaster (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Terrible

This is a terrible article. It's filled with irrelevant and purposefully (I imagine) ludicrous sub-genres of this fascinating topic, perhaps in an attempt to silence the overwhelming FACT that the New World Order conspiracy upholds? Remove all of the nonsense about Adolf Hitler, UFOs, and the Book of Revelations! The New World Order conspiracy is a much more valid discussion (and much more encyclopedic) when focusing on the facts that are presented to us in modern mainstream times... this article should be elaborating on the UN, NAFTA/CAFTA, American imperialism, and central economic planning - not the absurdity of connecting robotic world domination, UFOs, and the Christian apocalypse to the upfront desires of mainstream political leaders to deliver a New World Order. This is a dark side of Wikipedia that nobody should ever need to see, especially about such a prevalent, pertinent, and important topic! --156.56.139.35 (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is a bad article but not for the reasons you have ranted about. A Wikipedia article must represent all views associated with a subject regardless of how irrational they may be as long as such fringe theories are not given undue weight. --Loremaster (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is no one can agree on one coherent theory regarding the NWO.I have asked many people what they think the NWO is and I get many different answers but they do have common elements.They give me some quote or two and then offer me their own thoughts and feelings on what those quotes mean.That is because there is no facts which support this group of theories,only POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.236.24 (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Title contains weasel words

On several occasions, the concept of a new world order has been eluded to by a number of world leaders, past and present, i.e. George Bush Sr. Secondly, has the article been deliberately sabotaged with goofy excerpts and comments inserted by some naughty author/s? Can someone trace the author/s responsible for inserting garbage? It is suggested that documents created by organizations such as the US Government relating to a new world order be used to create a non-conspiracy theory section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.113.189 (talk) 07:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

On the issue of the title, we have an article New World Order which is not about the conspiracy theory but about what you, I think, are suggesting be in a section of this article. Could you be specific about your other comments? dougweller (talk) 12:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

To be Fair..

To express transparently; I feel that a personal bias in somebody's belief system here may be deterring the up-until-this-point "acceptable" or fair way of addressing these issues regarding criteria requirements for acceptable articles.

As a free lance journalist in Western Australia, I have ventured deep into the fields of 'the unknown' in relation to conspiracy theories, and "what the f$%# is going on?!".

After compiling endless hours of many months of research on everything/anything New World Order, I must say that I couldn't disagree more upon digesting such a disrespectful remark as This is a terrible article. It's filled with irrelevant and purposefully (I imagine) ludicrous sub-genres of this fascinating topic ... Are these ideas absurd? laughable? ridiculous? as defined My 'Holy Bible' (the Dictionary).. perhaps they are.. to Some.. or at least, it's a little bit out there for the every day Joe to contemplate without properly researching these topics (it's okay, the majority of people think the same way when approached with these views - so you "meet the standard")

Now.. for one; there are certainly links/consistencies/ideas definitive enough/globally shared enough to substantiate and necessitate the association of 2012/E.T's/New World Order as a collection of sub-theories under one overall theory sharing the same 'enslave the Human race' theme nonetheless (which I'm sure some more research on your behalf would have brought to your awareness). And secondly; I would substitute 'fascinated with the topic', with 'compelled' - unless, of course, you wish to imply that the idea of Fascism excites you in the most delightful of ways?

It would please me greatly - along with all others who seek to distribute these theories respectively - to see some amendments made to this matter (though understand and respect that the power, is not in my hands. So, you decide for us all.)

My only advise is, when dealing with this topic: steer away from using 'tunnel vision', or shunning views which may travel into realms which one (particularly yourself) may deem "nonsensical", and perhaps consider a more eclectic approach when looking at the big picture .. perhaps then, we can fathom the gist of what is going on.

I would love to help provide some information here to support my statement/s - however, I must save my efforts for the documentary which shall reach completion sooner than later... all in due course.

And on that note, I hope I see this article get settled just the same - sooner than later - as we are in times of grave deceit; extremely rough times, with awareness and truth, being our only anchors of salvation. I commend you all for feeding the world this food for thought of which may provide such nourishment for realizations, motivation, and perhaps, even spark enough momentum to inspire action. Peace.

~Phoenix Macskasy~

'Failure cannot Cope with Persistence'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.85.183 (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I view the New World Order conspiracy theory from a rational skeptical perspective and edit the article accordingly. No one is in control of this article. People who want to delete content because of a personal bias may express their views on this talk page but will not deter this article from being comprehensive. That being said, if you are interested in editing Wikipedia articles such as this one, I encourage you to create a user account since it is extremely useful but also because it contributes to a culture of accountability. --Loremaster (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite suggested due to poor grammar

Conspiracy theory in the late 20th and early 21st century allows for "fusion paranoia": the memetic synthesis of many "mind viruses" about the nature of the New World Order conspiracy and the identity of its conspirators that in the past might have been thought to be mutually exclusive.

The sentence is poorly constructed a rewrite is recommended.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria#cite_note-1

I wrote that sentence and I agree it is poorly constructed. I will rewrite it by creating a more robust criticism paragraph in the Lead section of the article. --Loremaster (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm done and quite happy with the result. --Loremaster (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus Please

However, in conspiracy theory, the term "New World Order" refers to a hypothetical totalitarian end of history.

However, in conspiracy theory, the term "New World Order" refers to a hypothetical totalitarian one world government.

The article seems to indicate a single world government as does the name of the article. I cannot find references to an end of history except possibly certain variations of the "theory" that are biblical. That is a possibility open to discussion because the biblical references do not fit the definition of an end of history, the final form of government that could last eternity, but rather the end of mankind.

Consensus is requested for the most apt defining introductory sentence. At the very least a brief explanation of why the "end of history" sentence is most correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.186.230.148 (talk) 10:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This really depends on which theorist you are talking to... In most of the varients I have come across, the goal of the NWO does indeed refer simply to one world government. A subset of theorists (mostly of a religious bent) believe that this one world government will signal the end of history (by ushering in the apocalipse). Blueboar (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

In the philosophy of history, the term "end of history" refers to the advent of a particular political and economic system as a signal of the end point of humanity's sociocultural evolution and the final form of human government. In conpiracy theory, this final form of human government is believed to be a totalitarian world government. That being said, since my phrasing is creating confusion, I will rewrite it. --Loremaster (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

End of history, the final form of government, is not substantiated in my opinion. I cannot find any references to those who claim the NWO will be a permanent institution.

Please provide references to the claim or remove it until substantiated.

Very rarely does one find those who consider what will happen following the establishment of a totalitarian one world government. Therefore it is not likely that many references are made to the "end of history" as defined.

Fine. I'll remove it until I find my references. --Loremaster (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious? The desired outcome of one world government is clearly spelled out by those who are PLAINLY AND OPENLY implementing it. Read it in your consensus media, jerks.58.110.104.91 (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this anonymous user is ranting about but I simply said that I removed the mention of the term "end of history" from the first paragrah of the lead section of the article. No one will be removing the mention of the term "world government". --Loremaster (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Contradictory and Schizophrenic Information

Although New World Order conspiracy may be theorized by any who fear the loss of their civil and political rights across the political spectrum, militants of the American far-right have been its most prominent and prolific theorists.

citing: Barkun, Michael. 2003. A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America. Berkeley: Univ. of California. Goldberg, Robert Alan. 2001. Enemies Within: The Culture of Conspiracy in Modern America. New Haven: Yale University Press. Pipes, Daniel. (1997). Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where it Comes From. New York: The Free Press. Camp, Gregory S. 1997. Selling Fear: Conspiracy Theories and End-Times Paranoia. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books. Fenster, M. 1999. Conspiracy theories: Secrecy and power in American culture. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press.

New World Order conspiracy theory may be presented by any who fear the loss of their civil and political rights, whether they be on the far-right or far-left. Conspiracy theory in the late 20th and early 21st century allows for "fusion paranoia": the memetic synthesis of many "mind viruses" about the nature of the New World Order conspiracy and the identity of its conspirators that in the past might have been thought to be mutually exclusive.

citing:

Barkun, Michael. 2003. A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America. Berkeley: Univ. of California. Goldberg, Robert Alan. 2001. Enemies Within: The Culture of Conspiracy in Modern America. New Haven: Yale University Press. Pipes, Daniel. (1997). Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where it Comes From. New York: The Free Press. Camp, Gregory S. 1997. Selling Fear: Conspiracy Theories and End-Times Paranoia. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books. Fenster, M. 1999. Conspiracy theories: Secrecy and power in American culture. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press.

Listed above are lead section sentences describing who the "theorists" are. The first and current description claims right wing militants are responsible. Contradicting the information with the same cites, the second and previous description claims that the left and right got together and focused on antiwar and civil liberties issues in order to further the "conspiracy".

Due to the schizophrenic nature of the information I suggest it be removed and instead focus on what the claims are instead of attempting to identify who is making the claim, unless a poll or survey can clearly identify "theorists" political associations.

In my opinion it is merely conjecture and hearsay without polls, surveys or other scientifically measurable data.

You seem confused. The term "fusion paranoia" has been given different definitions by critics of New World Order conspiracy theories and theorists. Micheal Kelly coined the term "fusion paranoia" to refer to a political convergence of left-wing and right-wing activists around anti-war issues and civil liberties, which he claimed were motivated by a shared belief in conspiracism or anti-government views (not to further the "conspiracy"). Others have refined it to mean "a promiscuous absorption of fears from any source whatsoever". Regardless, many critics have argued that New World Order conspiracy theorists are far right which is something extremely important to know when accessing their theories. Therefore, I would be opposed to removing information about the political association of these theorists. That being said, I am willing to rephrase the first sentence of that paragraph in order to avoid any confusion. --Loremaster (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

First I want to thank you on your cooperation so far, you have been a very pleasant editor to work with. Now I want to bring attention to my core argument that may not have been as obvious as it should have been, without interviews, data, polls, surveys or other scientific information, it is not possible to identify the "theorists" accurately. Therefore I suggest you cite reputable sources that provide factual information that is not merely the opinion of the author for inclusion in wikipedia.

I would kindly ask you to reconsider your opposition to remove the nonfactual opinions from the lead section.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion

I've read the above passages a couple times now. I believe they could potentially be rewritten for the sake of clarity, but I'm not sure I see them as statements of opinion. At best they can be implicitly "stated conjecture" (e.g. saying "statement <foo> is true" as opposed to "from what I can tell, I would suspect that statement <foo> is true" for the sake of brevity), but that would be a separate matter which could be countered by a more reliable, and better justified source. Concrete evidence in the form of interviews, data, polls, surveys, etc. are certainly preferred, but I don't believe them to be required to satisfy WP:V. It could be the author did all of these things and more, and merely didn't bother to clog his text with cold details. Or perhaps–not having the source in front of me–this information is indeed provided in the form of a footnote or something. -Verdatum (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Verdatum. Furthermore, I am concerned that this anonymous user may be a "believer" who is engaging in good Wikilawyering in order to delete some content in the article that is critical of New World Order conspiracy theories and theorists especially when it hits to close to home... That being said, despite his possible bias, I am willing to assume good faith and improve the article according to his criticisms if and when they are valid. I would assume even more good faith if he created a user account since it contributes to a culture of accountability on Wikipedia. --Loremaster (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Using Micheal Barkun as the primary source, I've totally rewritten the last paragraph of the lead section to read as follows:

Critics have expressed concern that the synthesis of paranoid theories about a New World Order conspiracy, which were once limited to American far-right audiences, has fueled their dissemination, made them commonplace in mass media and inaugurated an unrivaled conspiracist zeitgeist in the U.S of the late 20th and early 21st century. They warn that this may have negative effects on American political life, such as producerist demagogy and moral panic influencing elections as well as domestic and foreign policy.

--Loremaster (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Poor Sources - Consider Removing

In the past, the conspirators were usually said to be crypto-communist sympathizers who were intent upon bringing the United States under a common world government with the Soviet Union, but the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 undercut that theory. So most conspiracy theorists changed their focus to the United Nations as the likely controlling force in a New World Order, an idea which is undermined by the powerlessness of the U.N. and the unwillingness of even moderates within the American Establishment to give it anything but a limited role.

G. William Domhoff does not provide polls, surveys or scientifically measureable data for his claims who the theorists are. However he keenly notes that what he believes most "theorists" focus on or what they believe. Another author or equal repute may publish an article claiming what most "theorists" focus on and provide little to no evidence. Unless either author provides references, data or at the very least interviews then wikipedia is quite clear that the reference is the authors opinion, not a quality secondary source and possibly original research.

However due to its subtler importance it may be included in areas other than the lead section and directly attributable to the author and make the reader aware that these are opinions of the author and not statements of fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SECONDARY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.186.230.148 (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

For reasons explained by User:Verdatum in the section above, I disagree with your explanation as to why Domhoff is a poor source. --Loremaster (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Clarity Lacking - Rewrite Recommended

First of all, I take pride in my work and enjoy what I do and that is improving Wikipedia as a reliable open source encyclopedia. Second I will not tolerate public unsubstantiated speculatory accusations of bias, wikilawyering, or being a believer. If you want to speculate about others keep it to yourself. You would not appreciate it if others openly speculated about your motivations, so do not speculate about others.

Please lets focus on improving the article rather than each other, Wikipedia is much larger than you, I, or this article.

The following lead section sentence is not well written, a rewrite is suggested. Most importantly it is not clear what "has fueled their dissemination." Synthesis cannot fuel or disseminate. Perhaps shorter sentences and more common words would convey the message more clearly than longer sentences and extravagant words.

"Critics have expressed concern that the synthesis of paranoid theories about a New World Order conspiracy, which were once limited to American far-right audiences, has fueled their dissemination, made them commonplace in mass media and inaugurated an unrivaled conspiracist zeitgeist in the U.S of the late 20th and early 21st century."

May I have the privilege of editing the paragraph without having my most of my edits deleted or without being accused of bias? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.186.230.148 (talk)

The sentence you object to is heavily cited... so I would guess that the wording is an attempt to match the language used in the sources. That said, you have a suggestion as to how to better state what the sources say, I am sure people would consider it. Why don't you post your rewrite here on the talk page so everyone can see what you want to change and discuss it? And... would you please Wikipedia:SIGN#How to sign your posts|sign]] your comments so people know who made them, thanks. Blueboar (talk) 13:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

1. If you take pride in your work, enjoy improving Wikipedia as a reliable open source encyclopedia, and don't tolerate public unsubstantiated speculatory accusations of bias, I strongly recommend that 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. People rarely speculate about my motivations because they can see my track record of contributions to Wikipedia has made many stubs become good and even featured articles. 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-block on it which will prevent them as well as good anonymous contributors such yourself from editing it. So seriously think about it.

2. To understand what is meant by the suggestion that the synthesis of paranoid theories has fueled their dissemination, I suggest everyone reads Daniel Pipes's 2004 article for the Jerusalem Post entitled Fusion paranoia--A new twist in conspiracy theories. You will have to google it since Wikipedia's spamfilter is preventing me from adding a link to it here.

--Loremaster (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

All sides are saying things that are correct. WP:Assume Good Faith suggests it's best to avoid accusations of wikilawyering, or suppositions about an editor's motives. Registering for an account is A Very Good Thing. Signing comments with four tildes (~~~~) is an even better thing. "Critics say" can come off as Weasel words. However, if it is being used in a lead section to summarize something that further down in the main body of the article is directly attributed to the critics in question, then it is serving the proper purpose of a Lead Section.

Anyone is welcome to edit the main page; and there is no need to post suggested edits in the discussion page. be bold and edit the main page; if it is reverted but you still feel it belongs, you can post a link to the diff of the edit on this page, along with justifications and requests for comment on the discussion page. (To get a diff link, click the history link at the top of the article and copy the link location pointed to by the word "(prev)" next to the edit in question). -Verdatum (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

As usual, Verdatum is right. That being said, I've edited the last paragraph of the lead section of the article again for the sake of clarity. --Loremaster (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"To understand what is meant by the suggestion that the synthesis of paranoid theories has fueled their dissemination, I suggest everyone reads Daniel Pipes's 2004 article for the Jerusalem Post entitled Fusion paranoia--A new twist in conspiracy theories. You will have to google it since Wikipedia's spamfilter is preventing me from adding a link to it here."

This may sound common-sensical but I think it needs to be emphasized, the editor has the responsibility of communicating to the reader what is meant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Explain_jargon

In other words if synthesis can indeed fuel or disseminate, then it should be obvious to the reader what is meant, otherwise the reader will skip over the information, thereby defeating the purpose of Wikipedia. A reader should not have to guess which reference in a line of five references to click on and what paragraph to read in order to understand the editors meaning.

"The sentence you object to is heavily cited... so I would guess that the wording is an attempt to match the language used in the sources. That said, you have a suggestion as to how to better state what the sources say, I am sure people would consider it."

The author should not be forcing wording to match language, it is a poor editorial practice.

The unclear citations, and insistence on using those five sources to write two sentences, the last paragraph of the lead section, is precisely the problem. It is suggested that the editor attribute sources one at a time unless all sources state the same information and both sentences explain similar information. Although that is not required, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Inline_citation for Wikipedias recommendation. Furthermore sources should not be static, as the article evolves so do the sources.

"Anyone is welcome to edit the main page; and there is no need to post suggested edits in the discussion page."

The core obstacle, is a lack of respect for newcomers and an unspoken ownership of the article. The behavior of the editors is to delete any foreign contributions, demand using their cites and recommend that others post on discussion pages rather than in the article.

What should be done to discourage this spate of behavior?

66.186.230.148 (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

First, what makes you think anyone editing this page would be disrespectful to a new comer? Please assume good faith. Nothing says that two editors have to agree with each other, but such disagreement should always be discussed respectfully. When I suggested that you post how you would word the sentence in question here on the talk page, I did so because the tone of your previous comment made me think that you expect us to object to it. But perhaps that will not be the case. So, Verdatum is correct... The standard practice on wikipedia is "Bold, Revert, Discuss". Go ahead and be Bold... we might find that no one objects to your edit. And if someone does object, if someone reverts your edit... don't take it personally. Don't take that revert as a sign of disrespect or ownership, take it mearly as a sign that someone wants to discuss the issue further. The key part of "Bold, Revert, Discuss" is, after all: Discuss. Blueboar (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

1. You are ignoring the fact that I've already edited the disputed sentence for the sake of clarity and will continue to do so if needed.

2. It is obvious to many readers what the previous version of the disputed sentence meant or could mean without needing to read my source. However, I simply suggested that you read my source in order to understand the full implications of what it means since you seemed to be the only person who had a problem with it.

3. I am often paraphrasing (if not almost copying) text from some of my sources so the notion that I am forcing wording to match language is ridiculous.

4. Micheal Barkun's book is the main source for that paragraph. All other sources more or less articulate the same thesis from their different perspectives.

5. You are the one who first showed disrespect for the main contributors of this article when you accused them of presenting "schizophrenic information". That kind of language was needlessly imflammatory especially when the problem was your failure to understand a relatively simple sentence.

6. Your comments and contributions would be taken more seriously if you create a user account which you still haven't done (why don't you?). That being said, always keep in mind a Wikipedia guideline which states: "if you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly [...], do not submit it."

--Loremaster (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Financial crisis

To battle the financial crisis, Gordon brown and Barack Obama have both expressed there preference for a new world order. Global economic reform, with centralized management is the endgame.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/3414946/Gordon-Brown-calls-for-new-world-order-to-beat-recession.html http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/04/01/oakley.summit/index.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/4570360/Gordon-Brown-calls-for-World-Bank-and-IMF-reform.html http://www.rgemonitor.com/us-monitor/256229/g-20_china_is_clearly_looking_for_a_new_world_order http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/262629,world-economic-powers-set-to-agree-to-new-financial-order.html http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7BDBC4F657-3FF9-4A31-A634-D1D9D46E2270%7D)&language=EN

The aformentioned developments are strong idicators that the gradualist implementation of the new world order, is the correct one. We should add this to the section gradualism. Davidaurum (talk) 08:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrong article, you are looking for New World Order which would be the appropriate one for this sort of thing. Dougweller (talk) 09:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I see.... so only UFO nonsense is allowed here. Anyway, I hope the gradualism section will be elaborated.` Davidaurum (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No, only stuff related to the conspiracy theory. There's a basic difference. Find some conspiracy theorists linking them, maybe then. Dougweller (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing entire sections without discussion

IP editor 92.8.205.129 has been removing entire sections without any discussion (or even a reason given in an edit summary)... I invite this editor to explain the removals. Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is unacceptable. It is possible that IP editor 92.8.205.129 is User:The monkeyhate. --Loremaster (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I suspect that the IP simply has a particular concept of what the NWO conspiracy consists of, and thinks that any views that disagree with this concept should not be discussed. That is different from monkeyhate's edit. Blueboar (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. Well, I've removed the section called Singularity theory (which I created) because I have now realized that there are no reliable sources associating singularitarianism with New World Order conspiracy theory. --Loremaster (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the Theories about instances of historical manipulations section (because it was original research) and the See also section (for reasons explained in a section above). --Loremaster (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not planning on removing any other sections but I wonder if we should arrange them in a different order. I've moved the Timeline section to the bottom for now because I think it is important for readers to know the main NWO conspiracy theories before reading a list of events interpreted as proof of the implimentation of the NWO. --Loremaster (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I approve of the removal of the Timeline section since it encourages editors who believe in the New World Order conspiracy theory to dump any news item they personally interpret as supporting said theory. --Loremaster (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Great Seal image

Illustration showing the reverse of the Great Seal of the United States found on the $1 bill - with lines linked to read M-A-S-O-N, although it can just as easily be read as one of 120 possible letter combinations.

Illustration showing the reverse of the Great Seal of the United States found on the $1 bill - with lines linked to read M-A-S-O-N, although it can just as easily be read as one of 120 possible letter combinations.

The 1909 reverse

I am going to remove the image of the reverse of the Great Seal of the US (the one with the red "star of David" on it). For one thing, it isn't a star of David (as claimed by conspiracy theorists), as it is a decidedly irregular hexigram, unlike the star of David.

The reason it was used here was the M-A-S-O-N thing... but unfortunately, that is a "trick" that does not actually work. Try drawing the lines on a larger version (such as the one I attach to the right) and you will quickly see what I mean. The verticies end up pointing to the wrong letters... If you look at the version I deleted, they had to fudge the line on the right side in order to make it even come close ... if you do the "trick" correctly, the upper vertex points to the I of Coeptis and the lower vertex points to the U of Seclorum. However, that would spell U-A-I-O-N which does not fit the conspiracy theory.

I know that the image I deleted is often used by conspiracy theorists in an attempt to "prove" the Masons are behind the NWO... but surely we can find a better image for this than a parlor trick that does not actually work. Blueboar (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I support your edit. --Loremaster (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You've motivated me to find something better which I think I have: the logo of the Information Awareness Office. --Loremaster (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. Blueboar (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Slightly More Balanced Introduction?

Is it reasonable to propose that in the last paragraph of the introduction, there could be a mitigating sentence in part vindicating the strong escalation in distruct of the World's converging leadership? The last paragraph certainly 'wins points' for being heavily cited, but political science etc seems to be preoccupied with the point-of-view of leadership, while disinterested in public sentiment for its own sake and merits thereof. I'm aware that many of the people who propagate "New World Order" hypotheses are underinformed, but they are also disenfranchised and helpless in a historically novel form, and such theories are among the few lifelines that the public has at its disposal in their need to unite in holding leadership accountable. Surely the authors of this and other articles admit that the perpetual merging of corporations into global giants, and the sidelining of the democratic process that has been following visibly, is just cause for a growing sense of powerlessness and paranoia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.228.39 (talk) 05:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we can not add such comments on our own accord (see: WP:NOR). We can only discuss things like the "strong escalation in distrust of the World's converging leadership", "the perpetual merging of corporations into global giants and the sidelining of the democratic process that has been following visibly" or how there is "a growing sense of powerlessness and paranoia" if we can point to reliable sources that mention these phemomina (and do so in the context of explaining the NWO). Blueboar (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar. Furthermore, I suggest the anonymous user reads the Criticism section of the article. --Loremaster (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar is correct. Sometimes, Wikipedia's policy on WP:NPOV gets misinterpreted to mean neutral to all sides of an issue. In actuality, we only represent viewpoints published by WP:RS and in proportion to the number of WP:RS that express this view. Thus, if a conspiracy theory is regarded as bunk by WP:RS, then Wikipedia should accurately reflect this viewpoint. We do not introduce bias to counter bias in WP:RS. To do so would be a violation of WP:NPOV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I find it sort of ironic, Blueboar's statement. Considering that the NWO theory posits that information for the masses is tightly controlled, and that those in power wish to continue deceiving, it would not surprised me that, IF basic NWO theory is indeed correct, that the majority of the WP:RS regarding such conspiracies would be biased against their existence. Basically, the deception may be trickling down to wikipedia, and it is totally acceptable according to wiki standards.SpecialK12 (talk) 01:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well said, AQFK. :) --Loremaster (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for your input. It is very indicative that an extended excerpt from a "reliable" essay is included in the criticism section; I think if reputable academic writing on such topics were what many of you folks deem it to be, then this sentence from the essay would be a pinnacle of human achievement:

"Because all their underlying assumptions are discredited by historical events and media exposures, no conspiracy theory is credible on any issue."

I.e.: "who cares that he writes with the elegance of an 6th-grader, that each argument is packed with logical fallacies, or that he is betraying the spirit of academia by being actively closed-minded and absolute - none of that matters because HE'S RIGHT!"

I'm well aware that everything needs citations and that only certain content is reliable - I agree with all of that. As you all should have noticed, I did not attempt or even propose to add my own observation to the page, but merely intended to test the waters and perhaps receive some constructive feedback about the article itself, rather than about WP:RS and WP:NPOV. As usual, the only thing that compels me to descend into the bureaucratic hell of suggesting anti-establishment content for Wikipedia is the pain and disgust of seeing that people, on their own free time, have voluntarily written in content of a decidedly Orwellian nature, namely along the lines of 'conspiracy theories are bad for the people because it confuses them and makes them less complacent', as well as the foregone conclusion that encouraging questioning and distrust among the public is a bad thing by definition, whether those sentiments are valid or not; whether there is an urgent need for action or not. Why should I spend weeks unearthing RS's reflecting the obvious only to have them red-taped out of a respectable presence in the article just the same? Thse are the issues that I wanted addressed; if anyone wishes to address them in their own words, I'd appreciate it. Zinbielnov (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I for one am not interested in hearing the "constructive feedback" of a conspiracy theorist, regardless of how "moderate" and "erudite" he might be, if it consists of a demand to minimize or even delete criticisms of New World Order conspiracy theories. So please discuss substantial changes you want to make here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information. Otherwise, don't bother wasting your time. --Loremaster (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Timeline

A quick look suggests that not all of these have sources saying that they are part of the conspiracy. If they don't, then they don't belong here. dougweller (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Citing a news article about an event is original research and therefore not good enough. We need to cite the work of a notable conspiracy theorist who claims that this event is part of the New World Order conspiracy. So remove whatever you think should be removed. --Loremaster (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I went through the list... first cutting anything that was not cited somewhere. That took out about half of the timeline. Then I deleted the stuff that was cited to a news article with no mention of the NWO (WP:NOR). Finally I took out the items where the source did mentioned the NWO, but did not make the claim that the event was pivotal or crucial (WP:V and WP:OR). That left only 4 dates (all sourced to one website). That does not merit the name "timeline" in my opinion... so I cut them under WP:BOLD. That eleminated the section. Blueboar (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Good. --Loremaster (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

refimprove tag

I have removed the {{refimprove}} tag that has been on this article since May of 08... the article is far different than it was eleven months ago, and now has LOTS of citations. If there are individual sections or statements that need additional citations, this can be addressed by adding individual {{citation needed}} tags. Blueboar (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I approve. --Loremaster (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

NWO is "NOT" a Theory.....

Anyone paying attention to the G20 meeting HEARD then talking about it.

Now even Fox News and Sean Hannity are throwing their arms in the air and admitting that the “conspiracy theorists were right” as the agenda for global government is openly announced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.121.141 (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I realize this is a troll post, but a concept can be discussed in detail by world leaders, or anyone, and still remain a theory. At most it only proves that the people discussing the topic accept the theory to be true. Lots of people accept evolution to be true, but it will remain a theory until we can get a working time machine, and watch every instance of speciation from the first instance of life up until the present. -Verdatum (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Evolution is proven, however all science are theories, that is how science works! theory of gravity, theory that the earth is flat, theory of relativity. Your comparison of political science to real science is not a valid comparison. Is border patrol a theory? (ok you got me on that one haha) are taxes a theory? This is not a theory, as has already been pointed out by many people. If a president said that he wanted to push for a new world order, while he was in office (bush sr), how can it be theory? What it is IS a conspiracy, just not a theory, it is happening. why are the authors of this article biased? doesn't that kinda ruin the point of wikipedia? ~~FatesWebb

I am inclined to agree with the unsigned above. Just because there are theories as to its organization or purpose does not mean it should be segregated or have a separate page from the rest of the information. I propose that the New World Order (conspiracy theory) page and the New world order page be merged together. Although there are some seemlying ridiculous theories involved, the basic definition of the new world order is consistent in both. The issue of how it has come about can be listed under a new section which can focus on criticisms, debates and end goals of the new world order; however the question as to whether or not the New World Order exists or is pulling into the train station is now mute. A simple Google search reveals as much: http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&q=%22new%20world%20order%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn Pentarix (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Bad idea. There's a basic difference. As for evolution, you don't get something better than a theory -- the NWO conspiracy theory is really a hypothesis, not a theory. Dougweller (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between the concept of a new world order (which various politicians through the years have either noted is emerging, or have called for) and THE New World Order (as defined by conspiracy theorists). The two articles should definitely not be merged. Blueboar (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, I don't think the article says NWO is a theory. It says it's a conspiracy theory. Big difference. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

not really, theory is the noun, conspiracy just more well defines the noun. It is not a theory, so it is not a conspiracy theory. Since it does have multiple people working torward it, then it is a conspiracy, not a conspiracy theory. George Bush - New World Order Speech - March 6 1991 made it impossible to call this a theory you have the very leader of the USA saying it was his agenda, how is that a theory? take one more person, to join him, and you have a conspiracy, not a conspiracy theory!

again, you are biased on the subject, and you should not be editing the article because of that! ~~FatesWebb

Must... Not... Feed... Trolls... Blueboar (talk) 04:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest everyone calm down and read the this passage from the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article:

In the 20th and early 21st century, a number of statesmen, such as Woodrow Wilson, Winston Churchill, Mikhail Gorbachev, George H. W. Bush, Henry Kissinger, and Gordon Brown have used the term "new world order" only to refer to a new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power after World War I, World War II, the Cold War, and the global financial crisis of 2008–2009, which they saw as an opportunity to implement idealistic proposals for global governance. However, their use of this term has proven controversial since it has invariably been and continues to be misinterpreted by conspiracy theorists as a call for the imposition of an authoritarian or even totalitarian world government.

This is the reason why I will always be opposed to the merging of the New World Order and New World Order (conspiracy theory) articles. --Loremaster (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

What you fail to grasp is that these articles are one and the same. The theory becomes fact. The "conspiracy" or plan to create a new world order has long been discussed and has now come to light; the truth of it is being revealed, in the media, as we speak. In this situation, it's not like we are talking about fiction versus non-fiction. What some of these "conspiracy theorists" have theorized, "the imposition of an authoritarian or even totalitarian world government" is happening, just read Point 19 of the communiqué issued by the G20 leaders: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/5096524/The-G20-moves-the-world-a-step-closer-to-a-global-currency.html To the literate, this is no longer a "theory" but a "fact" and therefore the articles should be merged.

Once merged, information can be separated into sections relating to the history, theories regarding how it would come about and the goals of the new world order. On one page, all of the information is readily accessible, without being segregated by a few who think the information does not deserve the same merit, because they don't believe that the (now announced) new world order does exist, or because the information differs from their beliefs on the subject. There is no reason not to merge them other than blind ignorance or unless you subscribe to your own theory, that a bunch of "nuts" are conspiring to create anarchy by allowing people to have access to all of the information on one page. 142.214.79.29 (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

What you fail to grasp is that the theory has NOT become fact (and is unlikely ever to become fact... after all, a good conspiracy theory simply evolves to incorporoate new events and new "facts" that will go towards proving that the conspiracy is True and still going on. Blueboar (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this anonymous user can be reasoned with so I won't say more. --Loremaster (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

"I realize this is a troll post" - http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/andrew-grice/andrew-grice-this-was-the-bretton-woods-of-our-times-1662231.html - Gordon Brown has brought it to G20 with him TigerTails (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Bias!

Entire article

This entire article is very biased, calling the concept a conspiracy theory, while it is an accepted and admitted goal of both the media, and the politicians. How can it be a theory, if the politicians admit that they are pushing for it? The term has even been spoken, and supported by many presidents, including Reagan, bush, and bush jr, and was a mentioned in connection with the G20 this week hundreds of times by both global leaders and in news reports. Why should the article call such a thing a conspiracy theory, when it is clearly the admitted agenda of many politicians, who even use the term New World Order?

This article should be open for public editing! There are many news articles, and political speeches that need to be added to the article. ~~FatesWebb —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fateswebb (talk • contribs) 02:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

You are confusing the international relations theory about a new world order and the conspiracy theory about the New World Order. This article is about the latter while you seem focused on the subject of the former. As for the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article having a semi-protection, you should have no problem editing it if you have a user account so it is in fact open for public editing. --Loremaster (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed... we are talking about two seperate topics. What you seem to want is the article New world order, which focuses on how the phrase has been used by various politicians through history... this article focuses on how the term is used by various conspiracy theorists. Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that there is quite a bit of bias against the NWO order in this article. It doesn't seem very necessary to have a "criticism" section since the entire article seems critical of NWO. There are various subjective words and uncited statements riddled throughout. SpecialK12 (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The article New World Order (conspiracy theory) is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism, which seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. In light of the fact that this article is about conspiracy theories about a New World Order, many of which are widely considered to be baseless if not paranoid, it is quite logical that as many criticisms as possible will be integrated throughout the article and contained in a separate section dedicated to an overview of criticisms of the subject. That being said, we are striving to respect the Wikipedia:Criticism guidelines as much as possible. --Loremaster (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Gradualism section

Under the section Gradualism, this statement: "Despite having been strongly rejected by the United States thereby making its implementation impossible, conspiracy theorists have fixated on the mere proposal of a global currency as vindication of their beliefs about an eventual supranational currency for the New World Order." is strongly biased, without citations, and uses words like "impossible", "mere", "fixated". In fact, Timothy Geither U.S. Treasury secretary said of the idea "as I understand it, it's a proposal designed to increase the use of the IMF's Special Drawing Rights. I am actually quite open to that suggestion." Thus, this statement is also non-factual, and should be removed, although I can't do it since I have a new account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpecialK12 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll rewrite the statement to make it more neutral in light of the fact that it is unsourced. However, if we find a notable commentator who says exactly the same thing, there would be nothing biased about including such content. --Loremaster (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Slide

This article is the biggest load of nonsense I have ever read. The level of self-delusion required to believe that the world is not headed towards more integrated centralised political structures is staggering. All the talk of a New World Order, in terms of collaboration and cooperation at the G20 summit is much like the talk the preceded the creation of the European Union. Publications like Foreign Affairs have openly stated the desirability of a one world government, and several prominent bankers were quoted as saying this was a logical and desirable step in human evolution.

Incidentally, continuously using the words 'conspiracy' and 'paranoid' together is a simple rhetorical device that stereotypes anyone who disagrees with the establishment narrative. Notice how the 'war on terror' is not considered to be in the least bit paranoid by the same people who use this slide. So yeah, lol, Loremaster cares about ya and the truth and it's safe to go back to sleep, even if those do look like some singularly hairy wolf-like balls hanging from beneath his sheep skin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.208.11.184 (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

As has been said above... "You are confusing the international relations theory about a new world order and the conspiracy theory about the New World Order. This article is about the latter while you seem focused on the subject of the former." This article is not about the emergence of a new world order in world politics. It is about a particular genre of conspiracy theories. Blueboar (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself. ;) However, I would only add that the "more integrated centralised political structure" the world is supposedly headed towards does not resemble the bureaucratic collectivist or antichristian nightmare conspiracy theorists imagine. That's the crucial difference. --Loremaster (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

From what I can tell you're not familiar with what many amongst these so-called 'conspiracy theorists' think. If you believe that people who are concerned about movement to world government mainly comprises reactive Christian groups, then you might want to expose yourself to some of the more articulate and intelligent commentaries produced by people who have been monitoring and reporting on the machinations of world's financial elite. These individuals have on occasion spoken quite openly about their desire to form a politically and economically centralised world government, have a record of belonging to or funding socialist movements (i.e. the Fabians) and belong to several organisations that move to agenda forward in ways that one could hardly describe as transparent. The fact that some paranoid woolly headed thinking surrounds this topic doesn't make it less relevant or important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.208.11.176 (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The notion that the transnational capitalist class would support socialist movements that want to take away their wealth and power is an absurdity that only makes sense in the paranoid mind of a right-wing conspiracy theorist so you've made my point for me. That being said, you still refuse to understand that this article is not about the actual transition to the rule of a global ruling class known as "Empire". The articulate and intelligent commentators who write about that subject are not conspiracy theorists. But this article is about paranoid conspiracy theories of a New World Order involving the Illuminati, Freemasons, Jews, ascended masters, neo-Nazis, aliens and/or the Antichrist. Do you get that? --Loremaster (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

In light of you mentioning "publications like Foreign Affairs have openly stated the desirability of a one world government", I suggest you read this Diplomatic Courier article: One World Government: Conspiracy Theory or Inevitable Future? --Loremaster (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's stop here folks, please. This is no longer about the article per se but about the NWO conspiracy theory. Deleting IP editor's comments as both personal attack and using a talk page as a forum. Dougweller (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section

The criticism section is finally complete. However, in light of how large the quote from Domhoff's essay in it is we might want to consider paraphrasing its content as much of it as possible. --Loremaster (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV violation?

"So most conspiracy theorists changed their focus to the United Nations as the likely controlling force in a bureaucratic collectivist New World Order, an idea which is undermined by the powerlessness of the U.N. and the unwillingness of even moderates within the American Establishment to give it anything but a limited role.[1]"

The part in bold sounds too much like someone's opinion, IMO. Josh (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The sentence is a scholarly opinion about a fact. G. William Domhoff, a research professor in psychology and sociology who studies theories of power, is the scholar who wrote the 2005 essay There Are No Conspiracies, which is the source for the entire paragraph. I strongly encourage you to read this essay. --Loremaster (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Question: Are we presenting it as a fact, or as Domhoff's opinion? If the latter, we should make that clear. Blueboar (talk) 00:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

As fact. --Loremaster (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well then I guess you settled that, you agree with his opinion so it's a fact! Hogwash. Taken with the preceding text-"In the past, the conspirators were usually said to be crypto-communist sympathizers who were intent upon bringing the United States under a common world government with the Soviet Union, but the dissolution of the USSR in 1991 undercut that theory." the passage seeks dismissal of the entire possibility of the article's subject on the flimsiest of rationales. The Soviet Union dissolved- so what? Did Marxism, Socialism, and Communism as the goals of many people-or more relevant, the tools of the few, to enslave the many- cease to exist? Of course they did not. The appeal to authority you tried to use by stating "I strongly encourage you to read this essay" was puzzling,as many studied experts- college professors- believe in the existence in ideology, if not in title itself, of "the New World Order"- on that basis perhaps we should move the page from the conspiracy theory catagory to something to be taken more seriously?

This is problematic when one insists on affixing names or generalizations to really problematic issues. One can easily say "there is no "New World Order". Someone made that up. Now be a good little boy and off to bed with you." Yet you'd have to be an idiot to not recognize that powerful people meet in secrecy, controlling the destiny of humanity and it is in their common interest to erase international borders for exploitation of cheap labor and obscure the scrutiny of the transfer of their assets to avoid excessive taxation. I don't care if you want to call it the NWO or Commander Billy Bob's Happy Sunshine Revue, the shizzit's been going on in some form or another since before air, I doubt Domhoff denies this in his essay, he can tell us why Commander Billy Bob's Republican President decided to spend 8 years ignoring illegal immigration- nonsensically defying a GOP platform issue for decades- while his predecessor singlehandedly did more to arm and facilitate the industrial growth of (formerly) Red China than any other leader in world history- their human rights policies, let alone arms sales- in defiance of HIS party platform for decades. It's because both are members of the Happy Sunshine Revue. Batvette (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You'd have to be an idiot not to recognize that powerful people meeting in secret are usually noticed by mainsteam media or even tabloids, and if a meeting is not noticed by the tabloids, it probably doesn't exist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You'd have to be an idiot not realize that you, Arthur Rubin, edit Wikipedia to confirm to certain agenda, that deliberately distorts reality, cares nothing for the truth and result in serious harm being done to large groups of people. Frankly, I think you are a criminal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.46.214.106 (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You'd have to be an idiot to assume the media would report something to the masses which could harm the interests of their corporate owners. Of course this is why the "NWO" as fact only appears in independent media, which is conveniently labelled as fringe or illegitimate because it didn't appear in the mainstream media. Batvette (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"Reptile humanoids disguised as humans who rule the world" as fact only appears in independent media, which is conveniently labelled as fringe or illegitimate because it didn't appear in the mainstream media. So what? --Loremaster (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Batvette, I want to be polite, assume good faith, avoid personal attacks, and be welcoming but in light of your comments, and upon reading your user page, I can't help but tell you that you sound like a crank. But I will nonetheless reply to some of the questions you have raised:

1. Whether or not I agree with Domhoff is irrelevant. The sole issue is whether or not a claim can be verified with reliable sources. The fact that this essay was written by an academic's whose work has been vetted by the scholarly community makes it reliable according to Wikipedia standards. If you can find reliable sources that contradict this claim. The sentence will be altered to reflect that new knowledge. Lastly, I only suggested Josh read this essay in its entirety in order to better understand the context in which this sentence was made.

2. The fact that Marxism, Socialism, and Communism remains the goal of many people is irrelevant to the point Domhoff is making since he was simply pointing out that conspiracy theorists changed their focus from the USSR to the UN when the former collapsed and will proably change their focus again if the UN were ever to be disbanded. That being said, what I find perplexing about right-wing conspiratorial thinking about the New World Order is that it accuses the individuals and organizations who are “plotting to rule the world” of being Marxist, Socialist nor Communist when, in reality, they are all part of the transnational capitalist class who want to create a world empire to better impose ultra-capitalism on a global level. The irony is that real Marxists, Socialists, Communists and Anarchists not only have no real power or influence in the West but are decrying this future!

3. It is true that many academics formulate critical theories about a new world order in international relations. If you are interested in that subject, I suggest you visit the new world order article. However, the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article is about paranoid conspiracies theories about the New World Order! Do you understand the difference?

--Loremaster (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

1. I see no personal attack by me upon you, yet you went to my user page to glean data upon me to respond to issues raised on this page, and tried to discredit me with the contents of a page I created largely in parody. Was that because you think your points could not stand on their own? Really, that was bizarre, I never go straight to a user page and look for ammo on them before I form a topical reply.

2. Maybe if you included some relevant quotes from these conspiracy theorists you and your source allude to, it would serve to more credibly dismiss their beliefs. I don't think the Soviets have ever been the primary suspects behind this conspiracy anyway, and even if they were, the dissolution of the government system which was merely replaced with another superficially would not mean the suspects evaporated. This if anything should be the most relevant point in dismissing Domhoff's statement.

2.5 The issue as I see it is not that the alleged planners of this are communists or marxist. They would seek to superficially cater to communists or marxists to gain their support or at least appease them, and use their assistance to bring the masses under a system which the top 1% is ultra capitalist, owning mega corporations which are hand in glove with governments, and the remaining 99% under complete control and conformity working in low wage positions with little opportunity for enterprise to rise from the bottom.

3. Thank you for raising that point. Batvette (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

1. I felt personally attacked when you accused me of treating a scholar's opinion as a fact because you assume I agree with it and that I was appealing to authority because I strongly encouraged someone to read his essay. That being said, I didn't go to your user page to look for “ammo”. On the contrary, I always go to a user page to hopefully better understand and appreciate the perspective from which the person I am debating is coming from.
2. Including some relevant quotes from conspiracy theorists in the Lead section of the article would not be appropriate since this section is supposed to be a concise overview of the entire article. That being said, you still fail miserably to understand Domhoff's statement. He isn't implying that the suspected conspirators or their ideologies have evaporated because the USSR collapsed. He is arguing that conspiracy theorists changed their focus from the USSR to the UN as the controlling force in a New World Order.
3. Unless you are a mainstream journalist or scholar who has published his theories about who the "primary suspects" are and what their strategy might be, your personal opinion is nothing more than wild speculation that cannot be presented in this article. Specifically, your conspiracy theory that "the alleged planners would seek to superficially cater to communists or marxists to gain their support or at least appease them, and use their assistance" is not supported by anything going on in the real world since the transnational capitalist class has been doing everything in it's power to marginalize them in the Global North and violently suppress them in the Global South. Furthermore, a "system which the top 1% is ultra capitalist, owning mega corporations which are hand in glove with governments, and the remaining 99% under complete control and conformity working in low wage positions with little opportunity for enterprise to rise from the bottom" is an extreme form of crony capitalism or state monopoly capitalism, which is arguably the inevitable result of any capitalist system. Through union busting and other means, capitalists will always try to have a cheap and docile labor force in order to compete effectively with other businesses and maximize economic return. Ultimately, such a system is NOT Marxist, Communist or Socialist. Back in April, you anonymously wroteon this talk page the following non-sense: “Socialism for the masses presided over by a super-wealthy elite”. Such a comment reveals a deeply confused mind that doesn't understand what socialism is and isn't! For the record, Socialism is an economic theory of economic organization advocating state or cooperative ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities/means for all individuals with a more fair method of compensation based on the full product of the laborer. That system is obviously the exact opposite of what you describe...

--Loremaster (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

A comment to both Loremaster and Batvette... please comment on the article and not on fellow editors. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you and you are 100% appropriate in pointing this out. My input on the article is this passage shouldn't even be included.

In the past, the conspirators were usually said to be crypto-communist sympathizers who were intent upon bringing the United States under a common world government with the Soviet Union, but the dissolution of the USSR in 1991 undercut that theory. So most conspiracy theorists changed their focus to the United Nations as the likely controlling force in a bureaucratic collectivist New World Order, an idea which is undermined by the powerlessness of the U.N. and the unwillingness of even moderates within the American Establishment to give it anything but a limited role.

as it implies anyone of this belief as aimless and the belief itself as based upon ignorant fundamentals which evaporate on a whim. Happy Wikiing.

Batvette (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This text accurately reflects what is stated in the source, so it is appropriate to include it. However, I could see that it might be attributed to it's author. Blueboar (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad for you that you've taken it upon yourself to edit users' comments for topicality, but if you find need to remove one user's comment defending a personal attack, don't you think you should remove the personal attack he was defending himself from? To wit Back in April, you anonymously wroteon this talk page the following non-sense: “Socialism for the masses presided over by a super-wealthy elite”. Such a comment reveals a deeply confused mind that doesn't understand what socialism is and isn't! which was groundless as I did not make the anonymous comment. Batvette (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if that wasnt your comment but you said almost the same thing. --Loremaster (talk) 02:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That might be evidence there is a lot of us out here who think this, and getting back to this,(but thank you for the courtesy of an apology) that's what I meant by it's troubling when we seek to affix labels or generalizations on important matters. You're right, it's not socialism. It may not be the NWO conspiracy many seek to dismiss as an ill conceived concept. However many signs do point to a trend which seeks to globalize the economy- which has resulted in a transfer of wealth and intellectual properties overseas, and it is in the interests of corporate and government leaders to capitalize on this. They know the dominance of the US is in decline, and as borders diminish economically wouldn't it follow suit so does governmental powers?Batvette (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that many people believe the world is ruled by reptile humanoids disguised as humans doesn't make it anymore true. ;) That being said, the fact that we might be in a period of transition from the American Empire to the rule of a global ruling class called Empire is well explained in this essay by an anarcho-communist thinker. However, this article is about paranoid conspiracy theories about a totalitarian one world government runned by secret societies like the ones seen in bad James Bond movies. Do you understand the difference? --Loremaster (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Batvette, according to a consensus of mainstream scholarly sources, anyone who believes that the United Nations will be a controlling force in a bureaucratic collectivist New World Order is aiming at the wrong target and this belief itself is based upon ignorant fundamentals which evaporate on a whim. The article should reflect this verifiable claim even if some people feel insulted by it. Ultimately, your objection is not valid according to Wikipedia guidelines. --Loremaster (talk) 00:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

While that statement may be true enough I don't think Domhoff or his essay grasp what's (purportedly) going on here. Ultimately Domhoff uses flawed logic to come to a flawed conclusion. He states:

There are several problems with a conspiratorial view that don't fit with what we know about power structures. First, it assumes that a small handful of wealthy and highly educated people somehow develop an extreme psychological desire for power that leads them to do things that don't fit with the roles they seem to have. For example, that rich capitalists are no longer out to make a profit, but to create a one-world government. Or that elected officials are trying to get the constitution suspended so they can assume dictatorial powers.

On the first point, he assumes that a one world government must only be the immediate quick goal, and not a vast undertaking which must be accomplished in increments, and that the increments and larger goal do not serve the primary pursuit of profiteering. Rich capitalists would like to see our northern and southern borders vanish to have a vast pool of cheap labor to tap, and the closer we are to a one world government the easier it is to transfer assets in and out of the country to avoid excessive taxation. He implies their role would cease to be making money and instead be pursuing one world goverment-for what other contrary purpose he doesn't say- why create a one world government? Just to say you did? No, this ignores that the incremental steps toward this one world government serves their original purpose of profiteering quite well. On the second point he ignores that the Bush administration did in fact commit numerous abuses of power and make sweeping changes increasing executive branch influence- again not accomplishing dictatorship but moving the executive branch a step closer to being able to achieve it.Batvette (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Domhoff's point is about the motivation behind the actions, not the actions themselves. His point is that conspiracy theorists see a motive that is not justified by the facts. To continue with your example, While the Bush administration may well have made "sweeping changes increasing executive branch influence", these changes were not made with the goal of accomplishing a dictatorship... even incrementally. It is the conspiracy theoriest who leap to the conclusion that there is a goal behind the actions. Blueboar (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet he is flawed in dismissing the motivations. In the case of the one world government he suggests that the accomplishment of this, either as a whole or by increments, must be contrary to the pursuit of profiteering- which, as I gave two reasons why, is not true at all. In the case of pursuing dictatorships, he suggests because Bush did not accomplish this surely lofty goal, he would have no reason to work toward increasing the power of federal government and the executive branch. Which he did do and many reasons exist why anyone should. It's like saying "it's silly to suggest John Smith would have motivations to be a billionaire, when we can see he only made one hundred million dollars". John Smith's grandson will be the billionaire. Domhoff seeks to dismiss a NWO conspiracy by dabbling in absolutes, in all or nothing equations. That's flawed logic as a one world government will not happen soon nor will it be liklely called a one world gov't.Batvette (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting what Domhoff is arguing. For example, neoliberals (whether they be businessmen, politicians or intellectuals) may support a customs union between Canada, the United States and Mexico to expedite travel between countries and create a single market with standardized external tariffs. However, conspiracy theorists misinterpret this desire as a nefarious plot by a group of shadowy elites to replace the government of each of these countries with a totalitarian North American Union. Domhoff argues that not only is there no evidence that this is what the suspected conspirators actually want to do or could possibly acheive but it wouldn't even necessarily be in their best interests to want it or try to acheive it. In other words, no one is denying that the elites may want to create a world where transnational corporations are more powerful than national governments but that is radically different from wanting to create a one world police state. FYI: Debunking the North American Union Conspiracy Theory --Loremaster (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar is right but, ultimately, it doesn't matter whether or not Josh, Batvette or any other contributor personally agrees with Domhoff's point or thinks his logic is flawed. He will continue to remain a reliable source for this article. --Loremaster (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yawn. Argument from authority. That was blatant. No offense, LOL. Batvette (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not appealing to authority. According to Wikipedia guidelines, regardless of whether or not something is true or logical, relevant content should be included as long as it is based on a reliable source. Your personal opinion and criticism of this source doesn't matter unless you can back it up with reliable sources of your own (such as a mainstream scholar who disagrees with Domhoff). So, until you do that, this debate is over. --Loremaster (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Batvette, if there is a reliable source that disagrees with Dumhoff or points out errors in his statement, then we can certainly include this opposing POV. Barring such reliable sources, we must treat Dumhoffs analysis as factual and accurate. We certainly can not challenge what he says simply because a fellow Wikipedian dislikes what he says. Blueboar (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I would only add that Batvette needs to find a reliable source that actually argues that rich capitalists are plotting to rule the world by creating a one world government rather than, for example, simply trying to impose an international agreement on investment that would make corporations more powerful than national governements in some instances. --Loremaster (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

that would make corporations more powerful than national governements in some instances Are you claiming each is wholly independent of the other? You're skating on incredibly thin ice toward this:Wikipedia:Ownership of articles To wit- You do not own articles (nor templates and other features of Wikipedia). If you create or edit an article, know that others will edit it, and within reason you should not prevent them from doing so.

examples-Article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not. (This does not include removing vandalism.)

Whereas you claimed numerous instances of vandalism on or about the first of April, I just reviewed dozens of them and while some were many more expressed a different view or sought to bring the article's tone to the middle ground. The both of you engaged in this and many of your reversals were without explanation.

further- An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions. The discussion can take many forms; it may be purely negative, consisting of threats and insults, often avoiding the topic of the revert altogether. At the other extreme, the owner may patronize other editors, claiming that their ideas are interesting while also claiming that they lack the deep understanding of the article necessary to edit it.

Which clearly describes some of your behaviour evidenced on this page.

Also-example again- "I haven't had time to confirm what you wrote. I have other obligations besides wikipedia, you know."

Your comment on or about the time of those edits-

can someone please request a semi-protection for both the article and it's talk page? I would do it myself but my time online is becoming limited. --Loremaster (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think if we want to pretend we're here to follow wiki guidelines, we really should know wiki guidelines. Review that policy page as I have, please. I've been here several years but can't match you in contributions, in fact your long history in bringing the Knights Templar page to wiki's featured articles was quite an accomplishment. It won't be missed, surely, should we get silly about this article ownership business and go through wiki's due process to improve the community and rid its content of POV enforced ignorance. Shall we play nice now? You've chosen to enforce a POV on this page, with almost immediate deletion or ridicule, of any edit which could present the matter as plausible on its own merits. Yes some was vandalism, but much was contributions that even if unsourced the community encourages discussion and allows time for them to provide references. As often as not the contributions were quickly and summarily deleted, you 've continued this even this morning after an entry by Isoar4JC. I entered this talk page not looking to promote a NWO conspiracy theory but quickly became puzzled why such an intelligent person would not understand how parts of this mesh with reality. This reality, whether you wish to let it be known or not, can be viewed on 240,000 pounds of granite in a Georgia Field which cannot be dismissed as a fantasy, its absence in this article is glaring. You know the one. Would you like to cover it in this article objectively, or shall I? The Georgia Guidestones as good as validate this conspiracy theory as dead on fact, the only thing you'd be able to obfuscate would be what to call it or who the guilty were- and I don't want to have to watch over a Commander Billy Bob's Happy Sunshine Revue page. You might find you make enemies by quickly building a wall, forcing them to confront you, when they merely wished to step over the small stone you built it upon, and continue on their way. Batvette (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain what you mean by claiming that the Georgia Guidestones validate this conspiracy theory as dead on fact? Dougweller (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I read them. One world government. Pursued in secrecy by some shady people with visions of grandeur. Please do not assume I will engage a position of willful ignorance as serious, or forget that I said "as good as" fact. Batvette (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Batvette, I have been contributing to Wikipedia for over 5 years. During this time, I have improved the quality of numerous articles from a relatively neutral point of view despite my secular rational humanist perspective. The fact that some of these articles appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article demonstrates my knowledge and respect for Wikipedia guidelines and standards. And, as you can glean from comments on my talk page, I have been praised for my work by people from both sides of any given issue. However, I have also had to endure every violation of behavioral guidelines one can imagine including insults, personal attacks, threats, and harassement but I'm still here despite all that abuse. Therefore, regardless of how smart and diplomatic you might be, your comments on this talk page have convinced me (and probably a few reasonable observers of our discussions) that you are in fact a conspiracy theorist who wants to edit the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article to promote your extremely biased point of view on the subject. I don't own this article but I do watch over it in light of my declared interest in improving it until it meets good article criteria. So I will protect it from you or any person who tries to turn it into a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda. As for my tendency to revert edits (especially paranoid conspiratorial rants that are unsourced) without explanation, it is a bad habit I have which I am trying to correct. However, the New World Order is a controversial topic that is under dispute. Therefore, everyone is informed that they should discuss substantial changes on this talk page before making them in the article, making sure to supply full citations when adding information. So I frankly don't care if you or anyone else has a problem with me or that guideline. --Loremaster (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

you've had numerous users take you to task on this exact same issue, with your response on talk pages stubborn and insulting, which you repeat with me by stating convinced me (and probably a few reasonable observers of our discussions) that you are in fact conspiracy theorist.....So I will protect it from you or any person who tries to turn it into a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda. which is yet another of your statements which unabashedly proclaim this is your page to promote your point of view. Which conspiracy will you manufacture to affix to me? Aliens? Santa Claus? How about the Knights Templar?

The problem with you is you've taken it upon yourself to fill this article with your own parody of what you think the beliefs of millions of individuals are- to the point of comical proportions, with lizard people, and nazis, and ghosts of fallen communist rivals. You then affix these beliefs upon everyone who tries to persuade a more rational view be presented. You aren't fooling anyone with this charade, it is YOU who are pushing a POV, you're so deluded you ignored all those statements I provided from the article ownership page matched yours- even close to verbatim in one instance. "I don't care if you or anyone else has a problem with that guideline". You're a real asset to the community, I'm sure. We're going to have some fun here, sweetheart.Batvette (talk) 03:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Batvette, it is true that I have had disputes with a few people who wanted to edit the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article but I was never shown to be wrong. If any of them felt insulted or personally attacked by anything I have said to them during those disputes, I apologize to them all. However, I will not apologize for stubborningly wanting to protect this article from being turned into a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda. Although I do have a point of view (I confess to subscribing to Empire theory), I haven't pushed it in this article. The New World Order (conspiracy theory) article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism, which seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudoscieces, pseudohistory and skepticism. Therefore, although remaining neutral, this article will be written from a rational skeptical perspective. Like it's name suggests, this article isn't about new world order as a fact in international relations. It's about paranoid conspiracy theories about a New World Order. By conspiracy theory, we mean any tentative theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful Machiavellian conspirators, such as a "secret team" or "shadow government". Conspiracy theories are often viewed with skepticism because they contrast with institutional analysis of historical or current events, and are not supported by conclusive evidence. So the notion that the Illuminati, the Elders of Zion or reptile humanoids are behind the New World Order conspiracy are perfect (and popular) examples of the paranoid conspiracy theories this article focuses on. If someone doesn't understand this, it is not surprising that he or she will think this article is biased or that a point of view is being pushed. That being said, if you want to edit this article to include counter-criticisms, you will have to provide reliable sources to support your claims otherwise any primary editor will be justified in reverting your edits. --Loremaster (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting the Lead section to differentiate fact from opinion

Dumhoffs analysis can be offered in the article as his opinion, but never as a fact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV#A_simple_formulation Pergamino (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not an opinion. It is a fact. Many mainstream scholars and journalists who have studied conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists as well as the role of the United Nations agree with Domhoff's statement. Only conspiracy theorists and political extremists would obviously dispute it. --Loremaster (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact." - "It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe...", a practice referred to as 'mass attribution'." It's all there @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV#A_simple_formulation Pergamino (talk) 04:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That's an unsourced claim. "Many"? Not a majority will claim "there are no conspiracies" as it is an absolute joke you could get a majority to agree with Domhoff that there is not an unsolved crime behind the JFK assasination. OOOPS there goes your concensus too, better source that or tommorrow any reference to any expert opinion above and beyond Domhoff's WILL be summarily deleted. At least I gave you a warning.

From here on out, if you call ANY editor including me a "conspiracy theorist" expect to see the words deleted and if you persist it will be reported as a flame. You are obviously intent on belittling anyone who seeks to present a moderate viewpoint and marginalize them with the label, you showed from the start by labelling me a "crank" this sophomoric tactic is not below you.Batvette (talk) 03:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Batvette, like many other people who have read and misinterpreted Domhoff's essay, you are obviously confusing conspiracy theories with actual civil conspiracies, criminal conspiracies and political conspiracies. Domhoff isn't arguing that the latter don't exist (since that would be absurd), he is arguing that "conspiracy theory" has come to be defined as a tentative theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators, such as a "secret team" or "shadow government", which contradicts institutional analysis. That being said, I wasn't referring to you when I said only conspiracy theorists and political extremists would dispute Domhoff's statement. I was referring to the sources you or someone else might find and use. --Loremaster (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, folks... I don't think it matters whether we accept Dumhoff's statement as fact or as opinion. In either case, I see no harm in attributing Dumhoff's statement to Dumhoff (as in: "According to G. William Domhoff blah blah blah"), and have done so. Since Dumhoff is clearly a reliable scholarly source, there is no justification for removing the attributed statement. The question now needs to shift... are there are other reliable scholary sources that disagree with Dumhoff? If so, let's discuss those. If not, then this discussion should end.Blueboar (talk) 12:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have removed this: "In the past, the conspirators were usually said to be crypto-communist sympathizers who were intent upon bringing the United States under a common world government with the Soviet Union, but the dissolution of the USSR in 1991 undercut that theory." It does not say who says that. Pergamino (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Domhoff said it. I'll return it, and move the attribution to make that clear. Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Although I find this entire dispute over Domhoff's statement absurd, I support attribution in order to resolve it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Pergamino, I will continue to restore Domhoff's statement in the lead section since it is a scholarly opinion supported by a reliable source that is extremely informative and important for a section that provides a concise overview of the subject of the article --Loremaster (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Domhoff's opinion needs not to be featured in the lede. Pergamino (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think his opinion probably should be mentioned in the lede. His opinion reflects the prevailing opinion, held by the majority of scholars, and as such it should be featured in the lede. So far, I have not seen anyone provide a reliable source that contradicts Domhoff or gives any other opinion. Blueboar (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Aliens limited to those the source refers to is not POV

Mr. Arthur Rubin, you're implying it is POV to limit the scope of Alien inclusion in NWO theories to those who actually possess those beliefs, not imply it is widespread? That is not an objective view at all. The passage as it is written both implies widespread lizard (reptilian) alien beings is a common NWO theory, it is anything but, and as well contained a completely unsourced statement about UFO's as well. Your revert was out of line, be objective please. In fact I am of a mind that Icke's beliefs don't belong on this page at all, they are so fringe. If a Democrat believes in the Loch Ness monster, does a page about the Democrat party have to include a foray into Loch Ness Monsters? In addition, you deleted the sourced scholarly critique by one of Domhoff's colleagues, which was wholly relevant to the passage and well referenced. Such blanket deletions without description on your edit only serve to have a revert on your entire edit. The comical and disrespectful way this issue has been treated in recent edits will end, and will do so according to the letter of wiki guidelines.Batvette (talk) 08:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit. I don't know how you can think that someone who died 47 years ago, C. Wright Mills, could have criticised Domhoff. A search on "David Icke" and "New World Order" gives 219,000 hits, by the way. Dougweller (talk) 09:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

My bad, your logic is correct, it was Gregory Hooks, Professor of Sociology at U of WA, who authored the critique- certainly a "colleague" or contemporary if you will. So if that reflects your rationale for deletion I assume you've now got no problem with it?

My problem with Domhoff is well stated. He may be an expert. The logic presented which dismisses the subject matter sucks to high hell. Pursuit of one world government and profiteering are not contradictory nor mutually exclusive. The other editor refuses to discuss this obvious truth and instead places domhoff's opinions as factual and ultimate authority. Fine, we then add content which impeaches the authority. Is this within wiki guidelines or not? Hooks points out this is typical of his analytical essays.

As for Icke and "the google", I entered "David Icke President of the United States" and came up with an astonishing 149,000 hits! Shall we transfer his alien reptilian beliefs there, or keep playing the google game for a better match?

Really, are you here to improve the article or continue to ridicule the subject matter? As I alluded to Loremaster, it is better to give a little on this page than stand fast for a pissing contest. If you can't see his blatant statements reflecting article ownership we already have a problem here. Batvette (talk) 10:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

1. As Vicki Santillano explains in her recent Alternet article The 10 Most Popular Conspiracy Theories, the notion that reptilian humanoids control all of us is quite popular and has been mentioned by many authors who criticize New World Order conspiracy theories/ists. Here is an essay written by a conspiracy theorist, who isn't David Icke, that believes in the New World Order as an alien invasion: On the Brink of Annunaki New World Order. Therefore, the subject is note-worthy enough for a section in a Wikipedia article about New World Order conspiracy theories and I will stand fast against any attempt to delete it.
2. Counter-criticisms must be about the factuality of Domhoff's argument not about him or his methodology because many academics and journalists have expressed the same argument. That being said, you are still misinterpreting Domhoff's argument. For example, neoliberals (whether they be businessmen, politicians or intellectuals) may support a customs union between Canada, the United States and Mexico to expedite travel between countries and create a single market with standardized external tariffs. However, conspiracy theorists misinterpret this desire as a nefarious plot by a group of shadowy elites to replace the government of each of these countries with a totalitarian North American Union. Domhoff argues that not only is there no evidence that this is what the suspected conspirators actually want to do or could possibly acheive but it wouldn't even necessarily be in their best profiteering interests to want it or try to acheive it. In other words, no one is denying that the elites may want to create a world where transnational corporations are more powerful than national governments but that is radically different from wanting to create the one world communist police state imagined by conspiracy theorists.
3. I hope you realize that when you talk about the notion of one world government as an "obvious truth" you are confessing to a biased point of view that cannot be reflected in this article...

--Loremaster (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Folks... this is simple. We can discuss any and all viewpoints in this article... provided they meet with two conditions: 1) that the viewpoint can be referenced to reliable sources, and 2) that these reliable sources talk about a conspiracy in some way, and use the name "New World Order". The first is a core concept of Wikipedia, repeated in all our policies and guidelines. The second goes to relevance (New World Order (conspiracy theory) is, after all the topic of this article). In other words, it does not matter what Loremaster or Batvette or even Blueboar thinks is true... the only thing that matters, the only thing that we can include in this article is what reliable sources tell us. If this article does not address your particular take on the New World Order conspiracy theory, then go out and find reliable sources that you can reference and can fix the problem. If you can not find such sources... then please stop waisting everyone's time arguing for inclusion. Blueboar (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

FYI: Some of the discussions that pre-date the current exchanges have been archived. I don't think the material moved relates to current issues. (or if they do, the opinions expressed have been restated since then). Blueboar (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section

(In light of, and despite, the controversy surrounding Domhoff's comments) I've decided to expand the Criticism section of the article by quoting extremely informative and revelant content from this Diplomatic Courier article: One World Government: Conspiracy Theory or Inevitable Future?. However, it will need to be summarized. --Loremaster (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Summarize first, then add. Otherwise we are in violation of copyright. Pergamino (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Understood. --Loremaster (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Primary Editor Implying Article Ownership in Violation of Wiki Guidelines

Following Wiki guidelines per this article Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles which suggests a section be opened to discuss this, after numerous statements mirroring the examples found therein, I am reminding other editors of established user accounts this page is still open for responsible, well sourced NPOV edits which seek to improve the article. You do not, despite claims to the contrary, need to get anyone's approval or enter them here first before doing so. (but please remember blanket deletions are also out of line without discussion.) I believe the core of the article as previously appeared primarily from this editor is fundamentally sound, in excellent order, and should be retained if possible. However it should be tempered by edits from those who present realistic sampling of the wiki community and seek less to dismiss theories outright based upon details or innuendo and instead present the rationality of why these beliefs exist in the first place. Please provide descriptions of each edit and if possible do separate edits for each section, with the expectation there will be reverts- this increases the chances your positive contributions will not go out "with the bathwater". The goal should be to present the topic as accurately believed by the majority of individuals who actually believe it, and not present the most outlandish of fringe beliefs as that of a large number of people yet have little or no individuals ever professing such a belief. You need not feel a derogatory label as a "conspiracy theorist" merely for holding a portion of any belief herein, and should consider such a reference to your person as a flame. Batvette (talk) 09:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

At the top of the page is a "controversial topic" header, which contains this text:

• This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

On controversial topics like this, it's best to get consensus before making major changes. That doesn't mean that any single person needs to approve of an edit, it means that almost everyone who's engaged in the article needs to agree or at least not strenuously disgree. However, we're not here to represent the views of Wikipedia editors. We're here to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view, even those assertions and sources that we don't agree with.   Will Beback  talk  10:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

fair enough, however comment at 01:07 june 2 clearly expresses intent. I'm merely trying to encourage contributions by the entire wiki community, not protect a current version for the express intent an editor seeks a featured article nomination.Is this okay, or not? It seems that multiple editors are going to pursue instant reverts based not upon wiki guidelines or that the edits were vandalism, but because of their desire to preserve the article the way it was when this editor was quite stubborn about a number of users requests for NPOV tone. If I'm not mistaken this rationale for edit reverts is against every principle wiki was founded upon. Batvette (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked into that, but I know that sometimes with mature controversial articles like this many of the major issue have been discussed before. In any case, I'm just suggesting to assume good faith and try to find common ground. We all jointly own Wikipedia, so let's share.   Will Beback  talk  10:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Batvette, your wikilawyering doesn't impress or intimidate me. Beyond one exception, the only thing you have done so far is delete paragraphs and entire sections that had reached consensus in the past and been part of this article for months. Those are not examples of "responsible, well sourced NPOV edits which seek to improve the article". You are simply trying to suppress information you don't like. Only when you actually start making valuable contributions to this article that are deleted without good explanations will you have reason to complain. Lastly, let me remind you that, like the name "New World Order (conspiracy theory)" suggests, this article isn't about new world order as a fact in international relations (as you know, there already is an article for that: new world order). This article is about paranoid conspiracy theories of a New World Order. Do you understand the difference? --Loremaster (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You can try to dismiss the points but as the archives revealed a number of people had complained about the passage (Domhoff's) in the lead in so that was not agreed to by consensus- and if you really take a deep breath, step back and look at many of your statements, they don't just sound like article ownership, they mirror the examples given in that policy page precisely. That said I respect your contributions to this article and realize your frustration with some of the vandalism edits that were going on. I still question the Alien Lizards thing. It's just. So. Damn. Stupid. I think we're in agreement on that, BTW, we just disagree on whether it belongs here. Sigh... Batvette (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I added the Domhoff passage on February 16. Two days later, one anonymous user criticized it. User:Verdatum, User:Blueboar and I responded to these criticisms and the user dropped the issue. Since then consensus was presumed to exist until Josh, you and Pergamino voiced disagreement in late May. That being said, I've looked back at all my statements and I honestly read nothing that indicates that I act like I own this article but you are obviously free to take things I have said out of context and misinterpret them as much as you want. That being said, as the primary contributor to this article, I have declared my desire to collaborate with anyone interested in improving the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article - from a rational skeptical perspective - until it meets good article criteria. Unfortunately, this subject attracts juvenile vandals but also cranks who want to edit this article in order to reflect the conspiratorial bias. If in my dealings with such people, I haven't been polite, haven't assumed good faith, haven't avoided personal attacks, and haven't been welcoming, I apologize to them all. However, I make no apology for watching over this article. As for the Alien Invasion theory, I don't think it is more or less stupid that any theory that assumes one world government already exists or is right around the corner... --Loremaster (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No sources

This has no sources whatsoever:

Conspiracy theorists go further than Rothkopf, and other scholars who have studied the global ruling class, by claiming that members of the superclass who belong to the Bilderberg Group, the Bohemian Club, the Club of Rome, the Council on Foreign Relations, Skull and Bones, the Trilateral Commission, and similar think tanks and private clubs, are conspiring to create a bureaucratic collectivist New World Order through the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and other international organizations. Critics counter the superclass is only interested in imposing a neoliberal (or corporatocratic) form of economic globalization through treaties such as the failed Multilateral Agreement on Investment, and that most of the cited international organizations are weak, or weakening, and are hemorrhaging credibility.

Pergamino (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll take care of it. --Loremaster (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. In the meantime and until you do, it can be deleted. Pergamino (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, what would have been more reasonable in light of what I said would have been to put a citation tag like this one: {{fact}}. Regardless, I took care of it like I said I would. --Loremaster (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! Pergamino (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You still need to state who is proposing these views in the text. Otherwise it reads as of these were facts. Pergamino (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Georgia Guidestones

So where should we put a section about the Georgia Guidestones? I think it's highly relevant as a counter to criticism. It's not important how likely the points described in its inscriptions are to actually be realized, but that (in spite of Domhoff's conclusion) there seems to be someone who wants to do what he (and this article) asserts is pure fantasy. It shows there is a rational basis for the fundamental "conspiracy" if not who is behind it. BTW the edit adding that the disputed paragraph of the lead in was Domhoff's belief, was really all that needed to be done. Batvette (talk) 10:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

In a See also sction probably. It's purely a fringe pov that the Georgia Guidestones have anything to do with the NWO conspiracy theory. "Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.". No one knows the intention of the creator of the Guidestones, and the interpretation that they are ten points of advice for survivors of a post-apocalyptic world seems the most likely one to me. Dougweller (talk) 11:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree... link to it in the "See Also" secton. The Guidestones are only tangentially related to the NWO conspiracy theory. Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Not only are the Georgia Guidestiones tangentially related to New World Order conspiracy theory but, as I explained in a section above, "See also" are a list, lists are worse then text. Wiki is not paper, we should have room to discuss all related issues, and "See also", which rarely discuss the linked items, give little indication why they are relevant. According to some Wikipedia administrators: 1) if something is in See also, try to incorporate it into main body 2) if something is in main body, it should not be in see also and therefore 3) good articles have no See also sections. --Loremaster (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Loremaster, that is rediculous. A quick look through Wikipedia:Featured articles shows that the vast majority of our featured articles have "See Also" sections. There might be valid reasons to not link to Georgia Guidestones, but "we won't get good article status if we do" isn't one of them. Blueboar (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

When did I argue this? --Loremaster (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I misinterpreted your last comment, where you stated: "...and therefore 3) good articles have no See also sections"? I don't think that is a valid reason to omit a See Also section. The vast majority of our Good Articles have See Also sections. Did you mean to imply something else? Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I meant to say good articles should not have See Also sections even if the vast majority of Good Articles have them. --Loremaster (talk) 03:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it as relevant, even among the mainstream of the NWO. The relationship seems to be fringe, even among NWO true believers. If relevant, it should be in the #See Also section.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's not significant enough to be part of this article, See also is fine though. Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think it even rates a "see also" mention. It's Fringe of Fringe. But if it has to be mentioned in this article at all, then that is the best place for it. Blueboar (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

perhaps this could enlighten you on the relevance or significance of the site to this issue.goodnewsaboutgod.com Population Control ProofNot saying I agree with all her interpretations, just how it fits within the set of beliefs. As I understand it population control is a foundation of many NWO believers.I've seen some of her other pages related to this and she does tend to state a lot of assumptions to be fact. (understatement)Batvette (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

So what? This doesn't show there is a rational basis for the fundamental "conspiracy" if not who is behind it. It only shows that some rich eccentric built a Stonehenge-like structure with utopian non-sense written all over it that conspiracy theorists can use to feed their paranoid fears. Does any rational person seriiously think that members of the global ruling class, who are suspected of being behind the New World Order conspiracy, would waste their time creating poorly-written “guidestones” in Georgia, U.S.A.? Regardless of your answer, how is this thing a counter to criticism? --Loremaster (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's focus on what is important to this article. It does not matter whether the global ruling class, who are suspected of being beind the NWO conspiracy, did or did not waste there time creating the Guidestones. What matters is whether the idea that they did so has penetrated into the NWO conspiracy theory world enough for us to bother mentioning it. This is not dissimilar to the whole "Masons put NWO stuff on the dollar bill" theory. If you know the facts, it is paranoid rubbish... but, among conspiracy fans the Masons and the dollar bill is commonly held paranoid fringe rubbish, so we discuss it. The Guidestones isn't. So we shouldn't. Blueboar (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you but I was just making a point. --Loremaster (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The analogy with the eye on the dollar fails, it might be relevant if you had a text passage you could see with a magnifying glass on the bill that said "the people who embedded this symbol on your money are gonna rock your world someday". By furnishing the link to work somebody has taken the time to compile about how they feel the Georgia Guidestones is evidence of their beliefs, I think the case for inclusion of the issue to this page is just as compelling as your own case for inclusion of the Alien Lizard people by David Icke- a conspiracy theorist believes it, we reference that conspiracy theorist, and that should be enough. I've offered you the opportunity to write the section yourself first, in the interest of keeping the well composed appearance of the article, out of respect for your quest for featured article status. I can't force you to do it but if you do not you're going to have to really reach to come up with grounds for deletion for the version I or someone else ends up inserting. I'm trying to work with you here. Batvette (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Batvette, despite your good faith, you don't seem to understand the problem. According to Wikipedia guidelines, "neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority." Therefore, until many reliable sources show that the fringe theory that connects Georgia Guidestones to the NWO has become as popular among some conspiracy theorists as the Alien Invasion theory is well-known to have become, it should not and will not be mentioned in the New World Order conspiracy theory article. --Loremaster (talk) 05:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Please Google "georgia guidestones" and "NWO" or "new world order" or any variation you like, and you should find within your immediate sight sufficient reference material to justify inclusion of this and generate some content on the matter, at least as legitimate as what you have on Icke and his Aliens. Do so and I will happily skip on my merry way and forget I ever made the mistake of attempting to deface your article.

Continue to insult my admittedly less than stellar intelligence by pretending it's not relevant or you don't think anybody else believes it is, and I will make it a project to ensure this article has more editors than you have minutes in your day to count them. This is not a threat but a comment in bewilderment that a seemingly intelligent person such as youself should realize it's not wise to run around lighting fires under people. Despite your claims of consensus, I counted at least a dozen editors (or would bes) on archive page 3 who had some very serious problems with the article as it appeared after your entrance and edits. Many of them argued exactly what my points have been, and their arguments were thoughtful and intelligent. This is a community, after all. This is my last "olive branch". Batvette (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Batvette, no one is disputing that you can find a lot of material linking the Georgia Guidestones to the NWO conspiracy theory through a Google search but the issue is reliable sources! You do realize the first-party sources that consist of fringe websites of paranoid conspiracy theorists who actually believe that the Georgia Guidestones are undeniable proof of the NWO conspiracy are NOT reliable sources? Like I explained previously by quoting Wikipedia guidelines, an article should not include include tiny-minority views. However, if we do end up including a See also section (which I am currently opposed to), I would have no problem with a link to the Georgia Guidestones article being included in it.

That being said, I have been contributing to Wikipedia for over 5 years. During this time, I have improved the quality of numerous articles and some of them have appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article. Can you even imagine the number of users I had to collaborate with or, unfortunately, fight with during that time to get work done? So trust me when I tell you I can handle any number of editors you can convince to focus on this article. Why? Because I'm usually right but when I am wrong I have no problem making compromises. As for my claims of consensus, it is perfectly normal that a Wikipedia article, especially one that stirs passions and tempts people to "climb soapboxes" like the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article, has people who have serious problems with it before and after I or anyone else start editing it. However, I (and others like User:Blueboar) have responded to these criticisms and these people dropped them because they couldn't show they were right so, according to Wikipedia guidelines, consensus can be premused to still exist. Also, the subject of New World Order conspiracy theory attracts cranks who want to edit this article in order to reflect their belief that a NWO one-world-government conspiracy is a fact. Although you may strongly agree with their "thoughtful and intelligent" arguments, introducing a conspiracist bias in this article is simply unacceptable­. So you can take the leaves of your "olive branch", burn and smoke them for all I care. --Loremaster (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

who want to edit this article in order to reflect their belief that a NWO one world government is a fact. This is typical of your perpetual intellectual dishonesty in perverting other editor's beliefs to then personally attack them as "cranks" and then claim they have no business editing YOUR article. This is three times now you've either outright called me a crank or alluded to my being part of "crank" editing efforts but completely misstated what opinions I and other editors expressed. I have NEVER stated a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT EXISTS AS FACT OR IS AROUND THE CORNER. Neither IIRC has any of what I referred to as thoughtful or intelligent editors. I explained my position and so did they, yet you continue this childish game. You seem to be a legend in your own mind in dismissing their arguments about your POV tainted content, I would offer the contrary view they left the article not because they saw the wisdom of your debate but because they couldn't stand to be in the same "room" with such stubborn arrogance. Your refusal to include a section on the Georgia Guidestones is based on a shifty and dishonest basis. First it's claimed nobody understands why it's relevant. I bring a link to detail that, then it's some nonsense about it being too minuscule to be mentioned- in comparison to what, plese? Alien Lizards? I suggested you search google, the references are at least as legitimate as those provided about aliens, did you bother? Of course not. You seek to repress information from appearing in this article which is contrary to your POV, which is that anyone who keeps their mind open to any possibility of powerful people quietly agreeing to work together internationally to exploit the masses globally for their own selfish benefit, or even to weaken individual governments to reduce wars and allow this exploitation to globalize, is a crank for even considering such a notion. Yet you cannot present their views to argue they are a "crank" without distorting them. The Georgia Guidestones merely offers tangible proof that SOMEone wants to do something of that nature and their very existence endangers the validity of your POV. Many of your statements reflect the most stubborn and blatantly possessive actions of editing I've ever seen at Wikipedia. You see this? Although you may strongly agree with their "thoughtful and intelligent" arguments, introducing a conspiracist bias in this article is simply unacceptable­. You just damn near outright said the contributions of myself and all the other people who came here to contribute- not vandalize- are simply unacceptable, based upon your distortions of our views. Batvette (talk) 01:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I am no longer going to waste my time responding to your incoherent rants against me so I will focus on the dispute of the moment: The Georgia Guidestones seem to have been built by a rich eccentric who wanted to give post-apocalyptic humanity "guides" to reestablish a better civilization than the one that destroyed itself. I don't understand how any rational person can interpret this odd creation as proof that a powerful and secretive group of globalists could want to conspire to eventually rule the world through a totalitarian world government simply because the Guidestones promote the ideal of a world language and a world court. Except for their promotion of population control and eugenics, I actually support many of the ideals written on these Guidestones (such as teaching Esperanto as a universal second language to foster peace and international understanding; discarding obsolete social traditions, encouraging liberal religions at the expense of fundamentalist ones; empowering the International Criminal Court; and “greening” our way of life in order to leave a smaller ecological footprint). Does that mean I support the creation of a totalitarian New World Order one world government? Of course not! If, instead of building guidestones in my local town, I decided to write a successful book that promotes the same ideals, would conspiracy theorists be stupid enough to see this as proof of the NWO conspiracy? Probably but they would obviously be wrong. As for the larger issue, I will continue to argue that just because some prominent politicians, businessmen, and intellectuals support a neoliberal form of economic and political globalization as well as multilateral proposals for global governance, it doesn't mean that this fact can be interpreted as proof that the NWO conspiracy is not only possible but actually going on. Anyway, provide us with reliable sources that confirm that the Georgia Guidestones is a popular view among conspiracy theorists or move on. --Loremaster (talk) 11:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

As I should have expected, more shifting reasons for why you won't include the section. You wanted a reliable soure, I gave you a reliable source. Now the view must be shown to your satisfaction to be "popular". What defines popular? It's popular enough that the guidestones page has a section on it, and that's not my edit. In addition this is typical of you and your shifty, dishonest arguments-"I don't understand how any rational person can interpret this odd creation as proof..." Are you saying a belief of an Alien Lizard race NWO is held by rational people? Was that a standard you required for entry when you created that section or did you just make it up now? Maybe you can explain why it is the Georgia Guidestones page has a "see also" link which brings people to this page which has no section on it. I think you've run out of excuses.Batvette (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Batvette, you seem to be confusing two issues:

The first issue you raised was whether or not the Georgia Guidestones can be intepreted as showing "there is a rational basis for the fundamental conspiracy if not who is behind it" and be cited as a counter to the arguments formulated by Domhoff and Partridge in the Criticism section. In my comments above, I simply demolished the basis for (mis)interpreting the Georgia Guidestones in the manner YOU want to. Nothing more. Nothing less.

The second issue is whether or not the Georgia Guidestones should be mentioned in the article in either it's own subection of the Conspiracy theories section or in a See also section. According to Wikipedia guidelines, "neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority." Therefore, if you can provide multiple reliable sources that confirm that the notion of linking the Georgia Guidestones to the NWO conspiracy is a popular view among conspiracy theorists, it will be my pleasure to write a subsection for the Georgia Guidestones in this article. Until then, it can only merit a mention in a See also section. However, as I explained in several threads on this talk page, I am opposed to the creation of a See also section for reasons that have nothing to do with Georgia Guidestones. Do you understand now? --Loremaster (talk) 00:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) There is no reason for there to be a section in this article on the GG just because there is a 'see also' link in the GG article. Clearly an understanding of the NWO conspiracy theory is relevant to that article if people are claiming it's part of the conspiracy. But it's not particularly significant to the conspiracy theory. I should have done this before, by the way, calling people dishonest is a good way to get blocked, please stop now. Dougweller (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

So "people are claiming it's part of the conspiracy". You agree. Now we're a step closer to his "popular". Thanks! BTW, would you consider calling someone a "crank" is attacking an editor? And please, the next time you make an entry on my user talk page, which does serve as a log to document my activities here, learn the difference between addressing someone's entries and behaviour, and attacking their person. My statement said his ARGUMENTS were "shifty and dishonest", but I won't quarrel with the overall criticism because I HAVE in fact attacked his person several times, but if you review the archives of our exchanges you will see his first began with calling me a crank. Back to the issues, can you and loremaster get together and arrive at what defines "particularly significant" and "popular" and come up with what size hoop I'm supposed to jump through before I have permission to edit "his" page? I've given him ample opportunity to write the section and he won't so I suppose I'll have to do it myself.Batvette (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Batvette, no one ever denied that some conspiracy theorists claim the Georgia Guidestones is part of the NWO conspiracy. The issue is how many conspiracy theorists actually do. The notion that the Illuminati or Jews or aliens are behind the New World Order conspiracy has been embraced by many people throughout history but the notion of linking the Georgia Guidestones to the NWO conspiracy is still a tiny-minority view among conspiracy theorists. So we simply need some reliable sources that confirm that it actually is a popular view. That being said, I would like to refute a lie you keep repeating: If one reviews the archives, he or she will discover that you started this "flame war" between us when you accused me of treating a scholar's opinion as a fact because you assume I agree with it and that I was appealing to authority because I strongly encouraged someone to read his essay. I replied: "Batvette, I want to be polite, assume good faith, avoid personal attacks, and be welcoming but in light of your comments, and upon reading your user page, I can't help but tell you that you sound like a crank." You will notice that I didn't say you were a crank but that you sounded like one because of the absurd and bombastic rhetoric you were employing at the time (and still do). But getting back to the issue: According to Wikipedia guidelines, something "is presumed to be notable if it has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." --Loremaster (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Saying "you sound like a crank" is a clear reference to my person. "you sound like" does not significantly diminish the insult or cause it to be relevant toward the discussion. You call it a lie, anyone can see for themselves you said it and they can see my comment prior to that and make up their own mind. Don't pretend my comments about you placing Domhoff on a pedestal were unfounded, it was crux to the problems several editors had with you.Batvette (talk) 07:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What I call a lie is the idea that I started the personal attacks when in fact you did. Regardless, I did not and do not place Domhoff on a pedestal. He is a respectable mainstream scholar who has written with eruditon on the subject of conspiracy theories and is therefore a reliable source for this article. His opinion of NWO conspiracy theory is not only true but is shared by a consensus of scholars. Nothing you or anyone else has said has contradicted this fact. The only reason why his scholarly opinion was moved (not deleted nor modified) is because the Lead section should be a brief overview of all opinions contained in the article. --Loremaster (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The section in question is archived, please copy and paste the personal attack alleged or. Just. Move. On. To relevant issues. Your statement C/P'd: and upon reading your user page, I can't help but tell you that you sound like a crank. Were your words. Use mine if you continue to make the outrageous allegation I lied. Batvette (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the archives, the first thing you wrote on this talk page was this: “Well then I guess you settled that, you agree with his opinion so it's a fact! Hogwash. [...] The appeal to authority you tried to use by stating "I strongly encourage you to read this essay" was puzzling,” Not only was this a personal attack but you were wrong: “the powerlessness of the U.N. and the unwillingness of even moderates within the American Establishment to give it anything but a limited role” is a fact because several academics, journalists and activists from a wide range of perspective agree that it is regardless of what I think. Furthermore, Wikipedia demands all claims written in an article be verifiable by citing reliable sources so it is absurd to accuse me of “appealing to authority” when I suggest people should read the source to understand the context of a scholar's statement. --Loremaster (talk) 03:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please spare us the tedium of your rhetoric, these were my words: “Well then I guess you settled that, you agree with his opinion so it's a fact! Hogwash. [...] The appeal to authority you tried to use by stating "I strongly encourage you to read this essay" was puzzling,” and they were mine. Get back to us when you find what part of that is directed at your person, noit your flawed argument. Batvette (talk) 06:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Putting aside that any reasonable observer would agree that almost all your arguments on every issue we have debated were incoherent and soundly refuted, when you accuse me of arguing something to be a fact because I supposedly agree with a scholar's opinion or appealing to authority because I recommend people read a reliable source to verify a claim, it's a personal attack. If not, it's impolite at the very least and sets up a confrontational atmosphere when civility is one of Wikipedia's core principles. --Loremaster (talk) 07:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If you think pointing out a logical fallacy of an argument is a personal attack, by all means take your whining to wiki admin and plead your case to them. I refuse to attempt to reason with someone who is not conversant in the language. Me out.Batvette (talk) 08:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL You seem to be forgetting that you have been the one whining about personal attacks since Day 1. I'm used to personal attacks after 5 years so it doesn't bother me. However, I was setting the record straight in the interest of the truth. That being said, my argument was not flawed nor did it contain a logical fallacy. You simply don't know or understand Wikipedia:Verifiability guidelines: “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.” --Loremaster (talk) 08:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't change the subject. You called my statement a personal attack and that was just. plain. wrong. Admit it. Batvette (talk) 09:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I was personally attacked by your incoherent accusations. I'm not surprised you fail to grasp this since you are very confused and confusing person. --Loremaster (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I rest my case. When your back's against the wall you don't admit you're wrong, never consider compromise, just lash out with an unfounded ad hominem attack. Good for you, you find self esteem in internet pissing contests. Batvette (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* --Loremaster (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"a consensus of scholars"? Never proven, that's your asertion alone. Batvette (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I will provide you with a list soon. --Loremaster (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I might also add that what loremaster now is arguing against inclusion of the GG section is what I argued for exclusion of the Alien section. As stated by Blueboar- Folks... this is simple. We can discuss any and all viewpoints in this article... provided they meet with two conditions: 1) that the viewpoint can be referenced to reliable sources, and 2) that these reliable sources talk about a conspiracy in some way, and use the name "New World Order". The first is a core concept of Wikipedia, repeated in all our policies and guidelines. Batvette (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

What I am arguing is that, according to Wikipedia guidelines, "neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority." However stupid it might be, the notion of linking an alien invasion to the New World Order is a popular conspiracy theory but the Georgia Guidestones isn't unless you have reliable sources that state the contrary. --Loremaster (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should add it to the Gradualism section where you seem Alex Jones' beliefs were significant enough to bear mention, because Alex Jones has an article about it on his site: www.infowarscom/georgia-guidestones-vandalized/ He clearly states it is part of the New World Order. Alex Jones IS popular amongst NWO cranks, isn't he? Batvette (talk) 07:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

And if this isn't just the biggest koinkydink, this lady connects the Georgia Guidestones.... to the Alien Lizard Sun Worshippers! [2]Batvette (talk) 07:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who included Alex Jones' beliefs in Gradualism section and cited him as a source but thank you for noticing that mistake which I have corrected by completely rewriting that paragraph. That being said, conspiracy theorists are first-party sources that are not reliable. A mainstream reporter who writes an article about the beliefs of these conspiracy theorists is a second-party source that is reliable. Furthermore, the Gradualism section is about the formation of political and economic organizations that have a significant influence in the world. Some occult monument in Georgia that is unknown to most people obviously doesn't fit. --Loremaster (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I gave you just what you are asking for with the Wired article already. This serves to fulfill the Wiki requirement for reliable sources. The other references (alex jones, jay weidmar, etc, etc) were to fulfill YOUR ever escalating requirements for what is "popular" conspiracy theory. Alex Jones is THE most popular conspiracy theorist, no doubt. I remind you what blueboar said arguing for inclusion of the aliens section: We can discuss any and all viewpoints in this article... provided they meet with two conditions: 1) that the viewpoint can be referenced to reliable sources, and 2) that these reliable sources talk about a conspiracy in some way, and use the name "New World Order". 'Batvette (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

These are NOT my requirements. I simply want us to more faithfully respect Wikipedia guidelines which state that something "is presumed to be notable if it has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." Although the Georgia Guidestones is notable, conspiracy theorists linking them to the NWO conspiracy theory isn't. The Wired article is a reliable source but one isn't enough. Furthermore, it doesn't say that the GG-NWO link is a popular belief among conspiracy theorists rather than a trivial one. --Loremaster (talk) 01:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wired article is a reliable source but one isn't enough. Oh, really? Where in wiki guidelines did you find this? Every article on the site will no have to be rewritten! IT BEARS MENTION ON THIS PAGE and your refusal to do so is purely out of conflict with your POV.Batvette (talk) 02:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you actually understand the Wikipedia guidelines on notability which I keep quoting? What part of “multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability” doesn't compute? If you can provide multiple reliable sources that confirm that the notion of linking the Georgia Guidestones to the NWO conspiracy is a popular view among conspiracy theorists, it will be my pleasure to write a subsection for the Georgia Guidestones in this article regardless of my POV. --Loremaster (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

See bottom of talk section. What you refuse to accept to document notability on GG now is exactly, I mean exactly, what you used to document notability on the aliens. The Georgia Guidestones were recently vandalized with paint and the words "NEW WORLD ORDER" were all over it. There are reliable sources which document this as well. The only reason every NWO CT isn't walking around babbling about the guidestones themselves is because they don't even know they exist, however youtube is full of original content documenting the connmections.Batvette (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I refuted your argument below and you should know that YouTube videos are obviously not reliable sources. That being said, quote: “The only reason every NWO CT isn't walking around babbling about the guidestones themselves is because they don't even know they exist,” I rest my case. Moving on. ;) --Loremaster (talk) 03:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Since I am being quoted... Batvette, would you repeat your ref to a reliable source that talks about the Guidestones (you probably mention it in one of the longer comments above but so, I can't find where you did) Blueboar (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Here you go: Wired.com - 04.20.09 - American Stonehenge: Monumental Instructions for the Post-Apocalypse --Loremaster (talk) 00:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks... are there any other reliable sources that discuss the guidestones in terms of the NWO? I would especially like one that demonstrates that someone other than Mark Dice thinks the Guidestones are connected to the New World Order. Blueboar (talk) 02:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, how about Alex Jones, (link above) and Jay Weidner is a TV producer (described in the wired.com link, page 4) who assisted in making a film which mentions it- [3]and [4]Batvette (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

A conspiracy theorist is a first-party source that is not a reliable. A mainstream reporter who writes an article about the beliefs of this conspiracy theorist is a second-party source that is reliable. --Loremaster (talk) 08:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree... Jones is hardly a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is a passage from the archived section of talk page where you argued for the notability of the Aliens issue- Here is an essay written by a conspiracy theorist, who isn't David Icke, that believes in the New World Order as an alien invasion: On the Brink of Annunaki New World Order. Therefore, the subject is note-worthy enough for a section in a Wikipedia article about New World Order conspiracy theories and I will stand fast against any attempt to delete it. Where you used the original work of a conspiracy theorist to argue the notability of the issue. Please now tell me why again Alex Jones' work is not acceptable to document its notability?Batvette (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Your relentless tendency to take things out of context to make your point never ceases to amuse me. My reference to the conspiracy theorist was only an example to support the reliable source (Vicki Santillano's recent Alternet article The 10 Most Popular Conspiracy Theories) which stated that the idea that reptile humanoids control us all is a popular (rather than trivial) conspiracy theory. --Loremaster (talk) 03:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

YET this is what Vicki says about it:This has to be one of the wackiest theories I've encountered so far. It was started by a 1999 book written by David Icke called, The Biggest Secret: The Book That Will Change the World. Which serves only to refernce its source is a SINGLE PERSON and not widespread as you claim. Your source does not reflect your claim. Batvette (talk) 05:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* As expected, she pointed out the identity of the first person who started this conspiracy theory which she includes on a list of the most popular and durable conspiracy theories. She is logically implying that many people believe it and she obviously doesn't need to provide a list of all believers. That being said, even if her article is not the most in-depth source, the sources we actually use in the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article for the Alien Invasion subsection are more thorough. --Loremaster (talk) 07:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't care what YOU say is "logically implied" by the TITLE of her article, the CONTENT fails to deliver and limnits the scope of that belief to ONE PERSON ONLY. As for your other references in the aliens section they aren't references at all they are citations from books which can't be checked. Probably just as irrelevant. Why don't you just quit ****ing around and add the GG section and be done with it? Batvette (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Until you or someone else provides the reliable sources for the popularity of the GG-NWO link, I will never add such a section and I will delete any attempt to add one. --Loremaster (talk) 08:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wired article documents two people with that belief, you documnent the aliens belief to one person. explain why they do not merit equal treatment.Batvette (talk) 09:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

1) because the issue isn't the number of people named but whether the sources explicitly say the belief is popular, 2) both Alex Jones and you conceed most conspiracy theorists and their followers don't even know the GG exist, and 3) I created a new section below called Fusion Paranoia that discusses one of the sources for the Alien Invasion section in the article (which I will resist any attempt to delete). --Loremaster (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) You have failed so far to document in any link that any person other than David Icke believes that the NWO is perpetrated by asn alien race of reptilians. NOT ONE MORE THAN HE. Commentary which ridicules conspiracies of NWO AND UFO's is not relevant to the issue. It has been reliably documented that MORE than one person of note believes the guidestones and NWO are related. Furthermore it is plain to see you have no intention on giving any ground to any editor whose contributions you object to, your actions clearly display intent to control the slightest editing from this article. This inability to compromise is against wiki guidelines which of course you hold in contempt. Make no mistake the page as it appears is not by consensus but by outright bullying, and any future editor who seeks balance to this POV infested madness is invited to contact my talk page for my input.Batvette (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. I've known this for a while but you are obviously a fanatic that cannot be reasoned it despite my honest efforts to do so. I will no longer engage you in debate. I will simply ignore your incoherent rants and protect this article from your attempts to edit it to reflect your conspiratorial POV. --Loremaster (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

See also section and Georgia Guidestones

"See also" sections are a good device to allow people to find information that is related. I don't see a good reason to omit the Georgia monument link from that list, as well as add more links to it. Pergamino (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"See also" sections are also a good device to allow people to dump information that it isn't related except in their imagination. That being said, there isn't a good reason to omit the Georgia Guidestones from a See also section but there is from the Conspiracy theories section. --Loremaster (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"the issue is reliable sources": Wired.com - 04.20.09 - American Stonehenge: Monumental Instructions for the Post-Apocalypse Your requirement is fulfilled now, I trust. I would hope you can find the relevant passages. Batvette (talk) 01:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't find your quote above "the issue is reliable sources" being said by anyone here. I have no idea why you are citing the wired.com article, but the GG simply do not "tangible proof that SOMEone wants to do something of that nature" (that's a quote from you of course) and the wired.com article doesn't say that. The GG don't belong in the article except in See also. Dougweller (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Batvette was quoting me. Regardless, the requirement for a mention in the See Also has now been fulfilled... if we decide to have such a section. --Loremaster (talk) 11:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Section? What section. Isn't the "See Also" section a section for interesting pages that can be read and which are somewhat related? BTW, it's "separate", not "seperate" :)Pergamino (talk) 03:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to a See Also section. I'm opposed to including such a section in the article. You are for it. Let's see what others think. As I explained in a section above, "See also" are a list, lists are worse then text. Wiki is not paper, we should have room to discuss all related issues, and "See also", which rarely discuss the linked items, give little indication why they are relevant. According to some Wikipedia administrators: 1) if something is in See also, try to incorporate it into main body 2) if something is in main body, it should not be in see also and therefore 3) good articles should not have See also sections even if the vast majority of articles have them. (BTW, I don't need you to spot my spelling mistakes.) --Loremaster (talk) 11:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Lede

"to avoid edit war let’s resolve this dispute on talk page" ... but you keep doing just that... Basically, an opinion can't be placed on the lede, as the lede is a summary of all the noteworthy opinions. That's why Domhoff's opinion needs to be located in the sub-head that is related to the conspiracy theories. Pergamino (talk) 01:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

So what we need to do is summarize Domhoff's opinion in the lede (along with any others) and then discuss it in more detail later? I can live with that. Blueboar (talk) 02:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I am simply restoring content you keep deleting or moving. That being said, I agree with Blueboar. However, the expanded opinion should be in the Alleged conspirators section rather than the Conspiracy theories section. --Loremaster (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Blueboar. Pergamino (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Moved to "Alleged conspirators". I checked the lede and it is a good summary already; I don't see anything that needs to be added. Also, the "Alleged conspirators" and the "Criticism" subheads contain similar material and could be merged. Pergamino (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Pergamino on both counts. --Loremaster (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what we would call the section if we did merge them... but I like the idea. Blueboar (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

However, I disagree Pergamino's undiscussed decision of moving these sections into the Conspiracy Theories section. So let's please discuss and get consensus before making major changes. --Loremaster (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't that belongs there? Pergamino (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

No. This section only lists conspiracy theories. Criticisms are supposed to cover 1) the definition of NWO conspiracy theory, 2) different conspiracy theories of a NWO, 3) postulated implementations of a NWO, and 4) alleged conspirators of a NWO. --Loremaster (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Um Loremaster... I am confused by how you are structuring this... you say that the Conspiracy Theories secton "only lists conspiracy theories"... fine, but surely "2) different conspiracy theories of a NWO," and 4)alleged consirators of a NWO" should be mentioned in such a list? If not, why not? Am I missing something? Blueboar (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm simply arguing that the current structure is fine because it seperate things that should obviously be seperate. --Loremaster (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Georgia Guidestones Compromise

Contratry to what some have suggested, the Georgia Guidestones (GG) cannot be intepreted as showing "there is a rational basis for the fundamental conspiracy if not who is behind it" nor can it be presented as a counter to the arguments formulated by Domhoff and Partridge in the Criticism section. However, in my effort to improve the Occultism subsection of the article, I have come to the conclusion that a brief mention of the GG in that section would be pertinent. I guess this could be interpreted as a reasonable compromise that settles the dispute about whether or not we should mention the GG in the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article. --Loremaster (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Had you done so long ago we'd probably have avoided wasting so much of our time. Batvette (talk) 02:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't have done so long ago because it only occured to me recently to rename a section Occultism thereby opening the door for occult trivia like the GG to be included, which is something you never proposed. --Loremaster (talk) 03:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Addition: Global Elite Conference titled: Adapting to a New World Order

There was recently a global conference held in Montreal which featured attendees from the head of the world bank, IMF, multiple current and former central bankers and a wide range of individuals and organizations who have been listed here and elsewhere as being part of the 'New World Order Conspiracy'.

The 16th annual International Forum of the Americas Conference de Montreal (http://www.conferencedemontreal.com/accueil.html?L=1) was held from June 8 - 11th, 2009

I believe it is a notable addition to this article because:

1. The theme/sub-title of the conference is "Adapting to a New World Order"
2. The conference was attended by many members cited by conspiracy theorists as being behind the "New World Order"
   (including leaders of the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, Central bankers from around the world, etc.)
3. The official conference program includes official introductory messages from the Prime Minister of Canada among others
   who specifically mention the importance of this year's theme "Adapting to a New World Order" (available here: http://www.conferencedemontreal.com/fileadmin/pdf/2009/Program.pdf)

I realize that this is a very sensitive article and do not wish to inflame either side, but it appears that this clearly deserves a mention as it is most certainly Notable and comes from a Reliable Source.

Thoughts on where in the article this should be included? How it should be worded? Any objections? Digiterata (talk) 01:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you read WP:OR? This looks appropriate to our article New World Order, but the only way we can mention it here is with sources (see WP:RS linking it directly to the conspiracy theory. As editors we should not be making such links ourselves. Dougweller (talk) 05:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Doug. --Loremaster (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No mention of Youtube

I had added some information about how youtube was driving these conspiracy theories. In fact it is the number one driving force on the internet for this stuff. But it was removed. Exactly how does that omission improve this article?

OK it's not my article but it is a wikipedia article and short changing critical information related to this whole phenomenon is frankly absurd. Unless the mention of youtube violates wikipedia standards due to commercial nature of the site? Then ok just add "internet video sites" have contributed.

Sadly I have found many very biased articles at wikipedia. Not saying this is but I'm starting to wonder after the deletion of very relevant information about this subject. Anything with any controversy at wikipedi is normally slanted in some way to support one side, view or opinion. Or worse the article is used to support a particular view and used exclusively to support such views. Really not sure how to cure that problem, it's just a weakness of having the public create an encyclopedia. --Mikearion (talk)

I was the one who removed your mention of Youtube videos about NWO conspiracy theories because, although it's true, it is original research until you provide reliable sources. --Loremaster (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Loremaster-I couldn't find his edit, if it was written as "original research" it's fair enough to delete it, but if he was writing this as an observation that's a fine line to walk- you could say every article at wiki is itself "original research" by the person writing it. The proliferation of conspiracy theories at youtube is incredibly widespread and feeds the theories themselves, I think rewriting it to meet your standards would be more appropriate than outright deletion, as it's notable toward the article's subject. Is it "original research" just to mention it in the article? I don't think so, it's introducing another aspect of the subject.Batvette (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Batvette, I've deleted your personal attacks. Please be mindful of talk page guidelines otherwise you will be reported and possibly banned. That being said, since you seem not to understand what Wikipedia considers to be original research, I suggest you read the Wikipedia:No original research page. FYI: I'm currently on vacation and I'm proud to say that editing Wikipedia is one of my hobbies. --Loremaster (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm familiar with that page of course, enough to know it doesn't cover the concept I was getting at. "original research" as that is relavant to, is concerning references. My point was the introduction of an aspect to an article needn't be initiated by an outside reference, though the points within it should be sourced. To wit, starting a section with the statement "Youtube is a vehicle which NWO conspiracy theorists use to reach the masses" shouldn't need a reference for that observation, or should it? Batvette (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

As usual, you are wrong. We need a reference to mention youtube. FYI: I'm a perfectionist who is working hard to improve this article enough to be featured on the home page of Wikipedia. Most people applaud me for my dedication rather than insult me for it. If you continue attacking me you will be reported and possibly blocked. --Loremaster (talk) 01:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Your legal threats do not intimidate or amuse me, neither is the dishonesty inherent in the action of deleting the comment in which I stated it was exactly what you said to me earlier. Get over yourself- "Applaud you for your dedication"? If that's how you interpret OWNERSHIP OF AN ARTICLE you just go ahead and think that. Do not delete this comment, as it is not a personal attack and serves to document your unwillingness to work with other editors, your intimidating and threatening manner in twice now telling me you will have me banned or blocked, never mind hypocrisy in the patronizing insult "as usual, you are wrong."Batvette (talk) 10:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that no one takes anything you have to say seriously, I'm willing to work with anyone who 1) has created a user account, 2) isn't trying to edit the article to push a pet conspiracy theory but actually wants to contribute from a rational skeptical yet neutral point of view, and 3) is interested in making the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article meet good article criteria. If you meet all these conditions, you and I can work together. If not, get lost. That being said, do you any have complaints about the current version of the article (which was radically improved since you last edited this article)? --Loremaster (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Unlike you I won't edit your comments, feeling when someone says something ridiculous it's best to leave it as evidence. I'd like to note that your statement implies that you are willing to work with any editor whose edits are within your narrow POV, which seeks to discredit and marginalize any person or belief which mentions New World Order through distortion and association with that which can be easily ridiculed. Other editors have attempted to temper this article's POV tone just to have your hawkish watching of it delete their submissions in minutes. I cannot believe the arrogance here, the obvious OWNERSHIP of ARTICLE is disgusting. You think you can set "conditions" that people must meet regarding content of their edits? Ha. I won't waste time jumping through hoops for YOU. I'll come in here once a month just to make sure I register the complaint of ARTICLE OWNERSHIP in direct violation of Wiki policies. Which you'll archive immediately to make it look like happy days and sunshine here (just as you do to anything on your user talk page which is remotely critical) and I'll do it again. Oh, and "good article criteria"? How about a pursuit of the facts, and dispense with a vehicle for your own vanity?Batvette (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

To avoid repeating myself, please read my comments in the section you created called Warning to new editors of this article/This is an owned article. --Loremaster (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Content reflecting ugly realities suggested

Please be advised any content which does not widely ridicule or marginalize the possibility of any New World Order entity or movement existing, no matter what level or how legitimate your references are, will be summarily deleted, possibly as fast as you can put it up. See wiki policy on Article Ownership, and statements within the talk page and its last archive which blatantly mirror the examples given of the policy. I suggest this article be tagged as in violation of Wiki guidelines on POV indefinately, until it presents a more neutral point of view on the issue. Since wiki is a community which depends upon consensus, if you feel the article reflects bias or you have been intimidated into not editing the article, please post your concerns, as I am doing now. If you don't, your opinions will not be known. Batvette (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Although I tend to agree with you that he's taken ownership of the article, the article is now much less biased than it was previously, and none of your suggestions is even plausibly related to article improvement. I have to admit that referring (indirectly) to YouTube as a "legitimate" reference gave me a little pause, but it's possible that a legitimate source referring to YouTube as a source of propagation of the theory (or theories) would be helpful. If you could supply that source, it could be considered. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

1. The New World Order (conspiracy theory) article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism, which seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with pseudoscience and pseudohistory. 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 fact in international relations (if you are interested in that subject, I suggest you read and possibly edit the new world order article instead). It's about paranoid conspiracy theories about a New World Order. By conspiracy theory, we mean any theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful Machiavellian conspirators, such as a "secret team" or "shadow government". Conspiracy theories are often viewed with skepticism because they contrast with institutional analysis of historical or current events, and are not supported by conclusive evidence.

2. As the primary contributor to this article, I have declared my desire to collaborate with anyone interested in improving the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article until it meets good article criteria. Unfortunately, this subject attracts juvenile vandals but also cranks who want to edit this article so that it reflects their conspiratorial bias. If in my dealings with such people, I haven't been polite, haven't assumed good faith, haven't avoided personal attacks, and haven't been welcoming, I apologize to them all. However, I make no apology for watching over this article.

--Loremaster (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Arthur Rubin where he says "the article is now much less biased than it was previously, and none of your suggestions is even plausibly related to article improvement." and with his comment on YouTube. I would use the word responsibility, not ownership. It's not a bad thing. I was wondering about it when he first arrived, but not now. In fact, I'm pleased someone is looking after this article, it needs it. Loremaster's comments above are well said. Batvette is clearly not showing good faith towards Loremaster and needs to read WP:AGF as well as WP:NPOV which he either doesn't understand or does not agree with. And of course WP:Fringe which also applies here. I've already had to warn Batvette about personal attacks. Dougweller (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

And I explained on my talk page where you voiced that complaint that the comment in question was not a personal attack. The fact you didn't respond to that yet repeat the complaint now suggest it is you who lacks good faith.Batvette (talk) 09:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no complaints about the way the article is written but the suggestion that any opinion which places any belief in the negatively changing situation of our world seems to be perverted into ridicule by the primary editor, who seems to have an "everything's just fine, nothing to see here" attitude about the corporate and government leadership which is obviously steering the world into the rocks. I for one do not believe they are being transparant, and do not believe that history has always been forged with complete randomness. This editor would like people to believe that looking deeper into this situation makes one "paranoid" and "a crank" and I am not the only one to think that is irresponsible. The "new world order" article is also not a lucid view into this matter. This page smacks of a fascist discouragement into healthy investigation about how our future is being charted, look at how the introduction suggests that the more people believe in it that it has "devastating effects on American politics"? How DARE we question our leaders or their intentions, when they meet at Bohemian Grove and run around naked making sacrifices to pagan gods? To imply anyone wondering what goes on at such meetings as this or the other well known functions is not to be allowed to edit this page is just stupid. I ask the editor this, 1, does he believe the rich and powerful would call a press conference to report to the public their machinations for the future, and 2, does anything of substantial accomplishment happen without a plan, and 3, what form of a "one world government" is required for them to profit at the expense of oportunity for the masses? That seems to be a sticking point with you and no one else. We have many changes going on which may or may not involve forming a OWG, that people may misidentify as a NWO. It's not rational for people to be called cranks for recognizing this.In the end, the BIAS that is apparant is that it's not a rational skeptical view as it discards any possibility that any of this in any form or increment is probable. See points 1 and 2, the fool is the one who thinks it is not. Batvette (talk) 09:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Batvette wrote: "We have many changes going on which may or may not involve forming a OWG, that people may misidentify as a NWO.". This is the reason why you fail to understand what this article is about! You are interested in documenting the transition from the American empire to the emergence of a global ruling class (that has emerged from within the American empire), which Marxist philosophers call imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism or simply "Empire". You might be surprised to know that I agree with you that this is a real threat to democracy both at a national and international level. If you recall, I even referred you to an article on this subject whose conclusions I agree with it. HOWEVER, this article isn't about that. It's about paranoid conspiracy theories about a New World Order one world government controlled by the Illuminati, Jews, Freemasons, communists, ascended masters, neo-Nazis, aliens or posthumans, which all deserve criticism and even ridicule. Do you understand? --Loremaster (talk) 14:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that link and did review it, and again looked at the wiki empire page. And after again reviewing parts of this article, here is where we have a problem. You acknowledge "Empire" as reality, and for many readers who come here and find to their dismay it's all to be dismissed as CT, this is probably what is really their perception. They think "the evil NWO" when it's nothing more mysterious than the usual suspects we would assume are accomplishing "Empire". However, in the article you offer a section defending several of these "usual suspects" which is as expected, very well written but the defense within fails greatly. Specifically, but not limited to, the Council on Foreign Relations. No, I'm not going to claim they are secretly conspiring to form a one world government. However I'll use them as an example, and I'm realizing that what I knew of them was probably a subconscious alarm that went off the first day I saw this article with them and alien lizards on the same page being mocked. Many of its members undoubtedly form the elite who seek the goals of Empire. You go to an unusual effort to distance them from actual power, yet every former President for decades, is a member. It is no secret think tanks don't just suggest or guide policy, they are the policymakers. You mention their size precluding secrets, yet it is well known within there are different factions- let me give you an eye opening bit of background on them. (you may not like seeing this but I would hope you appreciate the references)

Laurence Shoup coauthored a comprehensive book about them in 1977, "Imperial Brain Trust" which was published once then utterly disappeared for 27 years. [5] Shoup did a summary of CFR with excerpts from his book at the time of the 2004 presidential election, I strongly urge you to read this.[6] and if that leaves you unimpressed enough to (as I'd expect) cry BS on Shoup's work, think again:

The Council itself describes Shoup's expose as The most important critical analysis of the Council is: Laurence H. Shoup and William Minter, Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on Foreign Relations and United States Foreign Policy (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1977). and of course here you'll find that quote right here on their site. [7]

I wouldn't expect you to buy into his harsh rhetoric about them, but perhaps you might rethink the existence of secretive plans by nefarious entities right under our noses? As someone already stated, when does a conspiracy become fact? When the uninformed call Empire the NWO, out of ignorance, and come here to learn, you've got to have the proper information, or direct them to it- IMO, a good article should accomplish this as its first priority, don't you think? The NWO article in proper doesn't do that, and this article all but dismisses that part of Empire that is the ugly truth of the matter, that few dare write about, as fantasies of the mentally disturbed.

I will finish this by stating I feel your "ownership" as it were leaves the appearance of one of the most expertly written articles I've ever seen at wiki, and I'm not sucking up to get my way, I mean that. Perhaps you'd rather avoid controversy which could invite disorder, but I find wiki's value is often in the controversy provided by multiple editors playing tug of war on issues. Each side will do their best to come up with outside research to prove their point, (shoup's work?) and the result is usually closer to the lux et veritas we seek. Batvette (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Batvette, I'm impressed. Thank you for changing the section heading. That certainly shows good faith, as do your comments directly above. Dougweller (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

(copy from dougweller's talk page)

thank you for your kind comments on that talk page, you can delete this entire section as you wish. On that section title, I realize now attacking him for article ownership leaves me looking like an ass because with his skills that's only an asset to wiki, and I'm not there to win an argument. I hope appealing to his desire for accomplishment with the article is the route to do just that to the satisfaction of both of us, and would even admit it has partially been my own scholarly ignorance that previously failed me in presenting to him what my problem was with the article in the first place. It might also be said that his aspirations for the article's finished product are dependent upon references and an overall content which would stand up to "institutional analysis" as he states. (it helped for me to shut up and actually listen to what he was saying) I think bias isn't an issue but his desired encyclopedic standards for the article preclude anything less legitimate than institutionally approved critiques of institutions themselves. In that light I hope the reference I furnished can open the door to the presentation of information he can stand by without apprehension it would fail to meet the standards he seeks, yet provide a portal there or elsewhere for those looking for answers, which is of course our mutual goal. (copy of this to that page) Cheers. Batvette (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Like Dougweller, I am impressed and grateful for your decision to change the section heading, complimenting me for my work on Wikipedia, and your public display of humility. My respect for you has greatly increased. That being said, I think you are still making three mistakes: 1) you keep imagining that there is a secret cabal when, as G. William Domhoff explains, "if there is corporate domination, it is through leaders in visible positions within the corporate community, the policy planning network, and the government. If there is class domination, it is through the same mundane processes that social scientists have shown to be operating for other levels of the socioeconomic system"; 2) you continue to believe that the Council on Foreign Relations is part of a nefarious conspiracy when, as the article already states, "the Council on Foreign Relations is in fact a mere policy discussion forum which supports a super-imperialist approach to American foreign policy. It has nearly 3,000 members, far too many for secret plans to be kept within the group. All the council does is sponsor discussion groups, debates and speakers. As far as being secretive, it issues annual reports and allows access to its historical archives. Historical studies of the council show that it has a very different role in the overall power structure than what is claimed by conspiracy theorists." Super-imperialism is something I am opposed to but it's not the same thing as one world government; and 3) you speculate that the Bohemian Grove is something more sinister than a private club for the American power elite without any evidence to support such speculation. I therefore suggest you read Social Cohesion & the Bohemian Grove: The Power Elite at Summer Camp. That being said, I agree with you that the article would benefit from having an Alternate views section or subsection which would focus on Empire so that readers are not misled in thinking we are not in a transition from the American empire to the emergence of a global ruling class. It's something I've been thinking about for a long time but I was postponing creating it until I finished cataloguing NWO conspiracy theories and their respective criticisms as well as standardizing the references. As soon as this is done, I will start a section for Empire theory. --Loremaster (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's healthy we're geting somewhere, however I would offer you may not be yet viewing Shoup's analysis with the weight it should (IMO) be taken in. It's also not the only one he did. See [8] which is even more current. I know this challenges the core beliefs of people like Domhoff, but remember Shoup's credibility on this matter by the institution itself is unabashedly candid. On the more current analysis, he gives you exactly what Domhoff would assure us does not happen- long term plans for corporate and military dominance of the middle east, albeit with alleged benefits for the nation, made in secrecy, behind closed doors, with participation of US corporate and government CFR members. Even FOIA requests couldn't divulge it all. He acknowledges the roles of the CFR you do in the first (Bush/Kerry) analysis, but also details their behind the scenes work. He is not a CT and CFR admits this, keep repeating this to yourself if you have to. I also specifically said I claim no "one world government" need be openly pursued, for this to mesh with NWO or Empire theory. This is historical fact, and does fly in the face of Domhoff's assertion that transparancy, public oversight and accountability to the electorate are the rule. I am not arguing nefarious plots, I am asserting the corporate hand in government glove way things have always been done will always be done, the media and the history books both trickle down a sugar coated version to the populace. If a picture is painted by the article reflecting this Pollyanna perception by (not picking on him, mind you) Domhoff, IMO it raises credibility issues that would only serve to alienate readers who can easily research more revealing facts. On a personal level I respect you, but it disappoints me that it seems you neither read nor accepted the first link by Shoup, or fathom the legitimacy offered by the CFR itself in their mention of him in their archives. Read those two pieces by him, you must realize he is not a crank and has incredibly well researched revelations to offer. On a side note, the Bohemian Grove boys, well, we could believe they get together every year because middle aged power brokers enjoy drinking, running naked in the woods and as Richard Nixon plainly stated, getting "faggy" with each other. Or then again we could look at the evidence provided by one of the few who dared get within then tell all- (NOT Alex Jones):[9] I can provide more accounts, and again I know this challenges beliefs-secret meetings take place there. policies are forged there. they admit it themselves, proudly, with the Manhatten Project. You can come around to see the truth without feeling you have become a crank. Anything less is decidedly unencyclopedic. :-) I'm off now to read your version of Bo-Ho. As a teenager I lived in Santa Rosa about ten miles from there for a couple years, tho had no idea BoHo existed. The nearly magical beauty of those forests, especially in the dark of night, is a memory I can share with these men. Maybe not the debauchery part yet. Batvette (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* Batvette, you want to convince me of your point of view so badly that you are not taking the time to fully understand what Domhoff and I are telling you. Both Domhoff and I agree more or less with Shoup's analysis but we disagree with your interpretation that this is evidence that the Council on Foreign Relations is part of some nefarious conspiracy. You write: "long term plans for corporate and military dominance of the middle east, albeit with alleged benefits for the nation, made in secrecy, behind closed doors, with participation of US corporate and government CFR members." What you are describing is Super-imperialism (which is bad) but it's a not a conspiracy by some secret team or shadow government. These meetings are private to the extent that the media and the public don't have access but they are not secret in the sense of happening in the middle of the night in a Masonic Lodge without anyone possibly knowing they ever happened. Neither Domhoff nor I nor anyone else is naive enough to assert that "transparancy, public oversight and accountability to the electorate are the rule"! We are simply arguing that that plans for corporate and military dominance of the Middle East or anywhere else are out in the open but are simply peddled under the banner of "spreading democracy" or "fighting for our freedoms". As for your article about the Bohemian Grove (which I read the first time you linked to it), Domhoff actually mentions it in his essay Social Cohesion & the Bohemian Grove: The Power Elite at Summer Campbut he explains that it doesn't mean what you think it does. So read it and get back to me. --Loremaster (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This reply is quick and easy- where is this interpretation of mine which calls anything a nefarious conspiracy? What I provided, in Shoup's analysis, was basically a refutation that the CFR is: its position in influencing the policies of world leaders has been much reduced from its heyday during World War I. Today it is largely a ginger group, designed to consider and influence the policies of a powerless Commonwealth of Nations. Critics argue the Council on Foreign Relations is in fact a mere policy discussion forum which supports a super-imperialist approach to American foreign policy. It has nearly 3,000 members, far too many for secret plans to be kept within the group. All the council does is sponsor discussion groups, debates and speakers. As far as being secretive, it issues annual reports and allows access to its historical archives. Historical studies of the council show that it has a very different role in the overall power structure than what is claimed by conspiracy theorists.

The assertions that the size of its membership precludes it plans from being widely divulged to the public (I am avoiding the term secret, as well as conspiracy, plot, evil scheme, etc) has no basis in the available facts nor even rational analysis. Furthermore, the point of Cheney's energy studies as I cited also refutes that its activities in the written policy form are divulged and available for public view. This remains a sticking point in the philosophy of you and Domhoff- you like to say "people accuse this entity of keeping its activities secret- yet we can find no secrets, and the entity's mission statement says there are no secrets- therefore it is illogical or paranoid to think this entity has secret activities". and then when I show you secret activities of the CFR, the explanation might be be "well those aren't secret activities at all, they are the regular democracy and freedoms we've always been told they are spreading while they've had wholly different self serving motivations they kept to themselves. As Domhoff clearly explains, calling them secret activities is a misinterpretation". Batvette (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Batvette, since we have come to an agreement about the eventual inclusion of a critique of the transition from American empire to the emergence of a global ruling class, I think it is best that we end this conversation because it is becoming quite clear that it is impossible to have a sustained rational conversation with someone who 1) asks "but perhaps you might rethink the existence of secretive plans by nefarious entities right under our noses? As someone already stated, when does a conspiracy become fact?" and then later on asks "where is this interpretation of mine which calls anything a nefarious conspiracy?"; 2) cuts and pastes a sentence that is clearly about the Round Table but leaves out the term "Round Table" and tries to imply that this sentence refers to the Council on Foreign Relations when it obviously doesn't; and 3) persists in falsely attributing absurd beliefs to Domhoff and me because he is unable to understand and accept arguments that challenges his fanatical point of view. So I ask any reasonable observer of this conversation, why should I bother? I have better things to do. --Loremaster (talk) 15:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I should have said this before but the article was never written with a "everything's just fine, nothing to see here" attitude. Perhpas you didn't notice before this dicussion started but, in the Alleged conspirators section of the article, the last paragraph (which has been edited and improved since then) stated the following:

Critics counter the superclass are plutocrats only interested in imposing a neoliberal form of economic globalization through treaties such as the failed Multilateral Agreement on Investment, and that most of the cited international organizations are weak, or weakening, and are hemorrhaging credibility. Although these critics also accuse the global power elite of not having the best interests of all at heart, and many international organizations of suffering from democratic deficit, they point out that conspiracy theorists, blinded by their anti-Marxism, fail to see is that what they demonize as the “New World Order” is, ironically, “Empire” — the highest stage of very capitalist economic system they defend.

So the issue is only whether or not we should expand this point into a full-blown section about the similarities and differences between New World Order conspiracy theory and Empire critical theory. --Loremaster (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

History of the term

"American televangelist Pat Robertson argues that the modern use of the phrase "New World Order" originated in the early 20th century with English businessman Cecil Rhodes…"

This seems like an odd thing to put at the start of the "History of the term" section. The section deals primarily with how the term arose and acquired the varied connotations it has today, yet this paragraph goes on to describe Robertson's own conspiracy theory regarding Rhodes' use of the term. Of course, the reason to include the paragraph there is to note that Rhodes was among the first to use the term, but if that is true, shouldn't it be possible to find a source more reliable than Pat Robertson? If so, that source should be substituted for Robertson, and the part about Robertson's views on Rhodes scholars and so forth should be moved down into the "Conspiracy theories" section. If not, perhaps the whole paragraph should be placed in that section, as it has less to do with the history of the term and more to do with Robertson's views on the matter. A. Parrot (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I shared your puzzlement over the first sentence of that section when I first read this article many months ago but I came to understand that this section is about the conspiratorial connations that the word "new world order" has gained. That being said, I will start improving it in light of your comments. --Loremaster (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've greatly improved the History of the term section. However, we still need a reliable source (that isn't a conspiracy theorist) for the claim that Rhodes was the first to use the term "new world order" as a synonym for "world government". If not, we need to determine who it really was. Can anyone look into this? --Loremaster (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Although I will continue to tweak it and add citations, I've radically improved the History of the term section (rendering my last comments and request above moot). --Loremaster (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

POV in assessment of the Council on Foreign Affairs

Historical studies of the council show that it has a very different role in the overall power structure than what is claimed by conspiracy theorists.

Not supported by significant piece written by Laurence Shoup, this is a one sided view of the issue. I wouldn't have to repeat this except someone has a hair trigger in archiving comments here.

Question, why is your section on fusion paranoia, which I am positive was added by you before the last section by me, not in archives too? Why is there no date and signature on it? There is no reason for most of the content from this page being quickly archived but to avoid any negative controversy appearing.Batvette (talk) 10:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The entire section is partly about how the Council on Foreign Relations is viewed by conspiracy theorists. The last paragraph contains a brief criticism of this conspiratorial view. Therefore, the section is fair and balanced. However, I have added a mention of Shoup's characterization of the CFR for the sake of comprehensiveness.

As for your question, according to Help:Archiving a talk page, it is customary to periodically archive old discussions on a talk page to avoid that page becoming too large. Bulky talk pages may be difficult to navigate, contain obsolete discussion, or become a burden for users with slow Internet connections or computers. On the other hand, there are circumstances where it benefits discussions to keep older sections visible on the talk pages, so that newly visiting editors can see which issues have been addressed already and avoid redundant discussion. --Loremaster (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded and improved the Round Table section of the article and it's assessment of the Council on Foreign Affairs. Thank you for motivating me in finally getting around to do this because the entire section is almost perfect now. ;) --Loremaster (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That's an improvement. Thank You. Batvette (talk) 02:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy you feel that way. :) --Loremaster (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for Semi-Protection

In light of repeated vandalism against the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article, which is bound to increase, can someone please request a semi-protection for both the article and it's talk page? I would do it myself but my time online is becoming limited. --Loremaster (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

IP vandalism

IP vandalism seems to be on the rise (probably sparked by the G-20 meetings and Obama's current trip to Europe). I have requested semi-protection. Blueboar (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :)

Semi-protected per this edit. Blueboar (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

In light of recent cases of anonymous vandalism, does this mean that the semi-protection was removed? --Loremaster (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it ran out on May 3. ... I have requested that the page be semi-protected again, and asked that it last as long as possible this time. Blueboar (talk) 13:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI, anyone can request protection... see: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. They are easy to do... For this article you would just add ===={{la|New World Order (conspiracy theory)}}==== to the TOP of the list, and explain the problem and desired result (a quick look at the other entires will show you the standard format). Blueboar (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

OK... it's been semi-protected again... till mid June. Blueboar (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Loremaster (talk) 06:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Fusion Paranoia (an article)

In light of the requirement to subscribe to the Jerusalem Post in order to read the full text, I am posting it here due to it's importance as a reliable source for the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article:

FUSION PARANOIA

Jerusalem Post | 1-14-04 | Daniel Pipes

Some people believe in the lost continent of Atlantis and in unidentified flying objects (UFOs). Others worry about an 18th-century secret society called the Bavarian Illuminati, or a mythical Zionist-Occupied Government (ZOG) secretly running the United States.

What if these disparate elements shared beliefs, joined forces, won a much larger audience, broke out of their intellectual and political ghetto and became capable of challenging the premises of public life in the US?

This is the frightening prospect, soberly presented by Michael Barkun in his important, just-published book A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America. To understand the novelty of this potential requires knowing something about the history of conspiracy theories.

Fears of a petty conspiracy – a political rival or business competitor plotting to do you harm – are as old as the human psyche. But fears of a grand conspiracy – that the Illuminati or Jews plan to take over the world – go back only 900 years and have been operational for just two centuries, since the French Revolution. Conspiracy theories grew in importance from then until World War II, when two arch-conspiracy theorists, Hitler and Stalin, faced off against each other, causing the greatest blood-letting in human history.

This hideous spectacle sobered Americans, who in subsequent decades relegated conspiracy theories to the fringe, where mainly two groups promoted such ideas.

The politically disaffected: Blacks (Louis Farrakhan, Cynthia McKinney), the hard Right (John Birch Society, Pat Buchanan), and other alienated elements (Ross Perot, Lyndon LaRouche). Their theories imply a political agenda, but lack much of a following.

The culturally suspicious: These include "Kennedy assassinologists," "ufologists," and those who believe a reptilian race runs the earth and alien installations exist under the earth's surface. Such themes enjoy enormous popularity (a year 2000 poll found 43 percent of Americans believing in UFOs), but carry no political agenda.

THE MAJOR new development, reports Barkun, professor of political science in the Maxwell School at Syracuse University, is not just an erosion in the divisions between these two groups, but their joining forces with occultists, persons bored by rationalism. Occultists are drawn to what Barkun calls the "cultural dumping ground of the heretical, the scandalous, the unfashionable, and the dangerous" – such as spiritualism, Theosophy, alternative medicine, alchemy, and astrology.

Thus, the author who worries about the Secret Service taking orders from the Bavarian Illuminati is old school; the one who worries about a "joint Reptilian-Bavarian Illuminati" takeover is at the cutting edge of the new synthesis. These bizarre notions constitute what the late Michael Kelly termed "fusion paranoia," a promiscuous absorption of fears from any source whatsoever.

The connection of conspiracy theorists and occultists follows from their common, crooked premises. First, "any widely accepted belief must necessarily be false." Second, rejected knowledge – what the establishment spurns – must be true. The result is a large, self-referential network.

Flying saucer advocates promote anti-Jewish phobias. Anti-Semites channel in Peru. Some anti-Semites see extraterrestrials functioning as surrogate Jews; others believe the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are the joint product of "the Rothschilds and the reptile-Aryans."

By the late 1980s, Barkun finds, "virtually all of the radical Right's ideas about the New World Order had found their way into UFO literature."

Ufology's wide appeal transmits these political ideas to a large new audience of ideological omnivores, informing them that 9/11 was either an Illuminati operation or the Assassins (a medieval Muslim group) attacking Freemasons.

What does this craziness all amount to? Barkun, who reads widely in this backstairs literature, argues that in recent years "ideas once limited to fringe audiences became commonplace in mass media" and this has inaugurated a period of unrivaled millenarian activity in the US. He worries about the "devastating effects" this frenzy could wreak on American political life – and by extension, around the world.

I am more optimistic, trusting the stability of a mature democracy and noting that Americans have survived previous conspiracist bouts without much damage. But nonsensical, ugly, and pernicious ideas do not fail of their own accord; they need to be fought against and rendered marginal.

The task starts with recognizing that they exist, then arguing against them.

The writer, director of the Middle East Forum, is the author of two books on conspiracy theories, The Hidden Hand and Conspiracy.

Wikipedia:WikiProject/New World Order/Neutral lede

Good news: Loremaster, I think we can solve the problem. Let's proceed very, very, slowly. It would be good if we got the assistance first of Wiki Techies maybe. But I'm willing and I think able to work with everyone to solve our problems - and adhere to Wikipedia rules. But I think probably we should proceed extremely cautiously. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There was absolutely no need to create such a project to resolve what problem you imagined it has in your convoluted mind. For the record, I am not interested in working you and I will strongly oppose all your ill-conceived proposals to revamp this article. --Loremaster (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

But you're ignoring the WP:Consensus expressed above by all these other editors? --Ludvikus (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

But you don't even understand what the consensus is... --Loremaster (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The WP:Consensus is above "all against one" - you, no? --Ludvikus (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

3 cranks attack the neutrality of the Lead because they think it is too critical while 3 rational individuals defended it (with some suggestions on how to improve that I agreed with) is what you call a consensus against me? --Loremaster (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It may resolve many disputes if this {{stub}} where developed: The New World Order (Robertson). --Ludvikus (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You could then make a brief reference to it in this Main Article, if you know what I mean? --Ludvikus (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean and I don't care to. --Loremaster (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

But others might be interested in what I mean and maybe I should make myself clearer for them. Pat Robertson obviously wrote a book on "NWO." So if we summarize his book, this article would send readers to it, and there will not need to be much said about his views here. I'm trying to suggest a way in which this Article might refrain from sweeping generalizations, if one wishes to attain a consensus. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that the WikiProject (!) should go to MFD. I'm not sure it's the technically correct thing to do, although it seems the appropriate result. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I would support your effort to have it deleted so please do. --Loremaster (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Mikearion's deleted June 3rd contribution

YouTube

In recent years the YouTube website has been used as a promotional tool by NWO conspiracy theorists. Conspiracy theory films such as Alex Jones' “The Obama Deception" have had over two million views since being posted March 12, 2009. The Jones films have also inspired numerous derivative films at the website.

The video counter at youtube is actually a good source but it's a banned video link at wikipedia. There are plenty of news articles on conspricy theories at youtube but I haven't found an article on this one yet. Here is an example of a UFO conspiracy theory about youtube.[10]

I'm sure if we dig enough there are plenty of good referances that will conform to wikipedia guidelines. I don't have a whole lot of passion about this subject. What got my attention was actually running into the Alex Jones video at youtube. I wanted to see what was here at wikipedia about this conspriacy theory and was stunned to notice no mention of the youtube effect on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.40.244.228 (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Loremaster-I, I'm just going to leave it alone. However, to improve this article the youtube factor really needs to be included. I did find articles on this subject (see UFO example above). It's not directly related to NWO conspiracy so it's a weak referance. I'll look again but I think you should be the one to include that information not me. Best, Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.40.244.228 (talk) 21:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

In the History of the term section, we mention conspiracy theorists' use of viral propaganda on the Internet. I'll expand on the subject after thinking about the best way to do so. However, I welcome bold edits that respect Wikipedia's guidelines for an article's style and structure. --Loremaster (talk) 01:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Bilderberg

A lot of circulation regarding 'Bilderberg' group of elite power brokers meeting in secret. Just curious, why no result on wikipedia search? Imone (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Because you didn't search hard enough: Bilderberg Group. --Loremaster (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Question: Where does this group fit in the NWO conspiracy theory? --Ludvikus (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

See the Alleged conspirators section of the article... --Loremaster (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Message from Loremaster

Due to problems with my home computer, I may often edit the article anonymously so please do not automatically assume that anyonymous edits are not constructive and revert them. Thank you. --Loremaster (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• No one should ever assume anonymous edits are not constructive. -Verdatum (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• But I had no idea that the two individuals were the same. There's a rule against such action. But I'm not into that. What I want is an acknowledgment that this conduct affected my ability to assess the Consensus on the issues involved. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• This conversation had nothing to do with you. I wrote this message because User:Dougweller reverted some of my anonymous edits on 17 December 2009 not knowing it was me. --Loremaster (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• But your "anonymous message" affected the Tally regarding a Consensus. As you know, going against the Consensus is (as I see it now, since my leave of absence) the most serious breach of Wikipedia rules. You realize that I'm now being hounded by at least two Administrators who effectively allege that I'm "disruptive." And that's precisely because of the count in assessing the Consensus. So what you should do now - is come to my defense and get these two ADM's off my back so I could work more peacefully and effectively. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk)

• What the hell are you talking about?

1. Please read the Wikipedia:Consensus policy page since you don't seem to understand it.
2. The consensus around this article has always been supportive of my edits and hostile to edits by people who believe in conspiracy theories about a New World Order.
3. The anonymous edits I am referring to were made by me in the Occultism section of the article on 11 September 2009. Dougweller reverted only because he didn't know I was the one making them and becase he didn't understand them.

That being said, I hope these administrators ban you from Wikipedia because of you are in fact disruptive. --Loremaster (talk) 21:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Can I ask why it would matter if it were you or an anonymous user in DougWeller reverting edits? Is there a standard another editor needs to adhere to when reviewing your edits as helpful or not, that would apply differently to other users? I'm getting the message that you expect certain other editors who monitor this article to blanketly accept what you do and not others. That's not cool. If your edits as an anonymous user were worth reverting, why are they not if it's you?Batvette (talk) 09:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree with Loremaster's recommendation. Considering how ludvikus has been treated on this talkpage, he has behaved quite civilly. No one is required to have all policies and guidelines completely memorized or understood, so long as they are interested in improving the article, which genuinely appears to be the case here. I have no problem Assuming good faith with this user's efforts on this article. -Verdatum (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Revamping Dispute

The New World Order (Robertson) & Militia movement

Isn't this WP article really about mostly the above subjects? --Ludvikus (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

No. It's bigger than than. New World Order conspiracy theory is a controversial topic is under dispute. So please discuss substantial changes on this talk page before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, to avoid an unnecessary edit war. Furthermore, please keep in mind that I have been meticulously working for months to improve this article to meet Wikipedia's good article criteria so I hope you understand that I don't share your opinion that this article requires a major revamping or cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. --Loremaster (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. But I see that it's only you and me. So there's no consensus.

But but I certainly do not wish to Revert your Reversion.

So please lets discuss things civilly here before we make any more substantial moves.

1. This article is about a particular conspiracy theory, right?
2. What theory is it?
3. What is it's origin?
4. Who advocates it?
5. Where is its origin?
6. In what time frame did it begin?
7. What's its relation to the Militia movement?
8. What's its relation the book, The New World Order (Robertson)?
9. What's its relation to the Illuminati?
10. What does it have to do with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

--Ludvikus (talk) 23:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the discussion in the Neutrality in question section above, you will see that there are other Wkipiedia contributors who have taken interest in the article and supported the consensus there was before you came along. That being said, I'll answer your questions (which are actually all answered in the article itself).

1. This article is about all conspiracy theories related to the New World Order defined as a totalitarian one-world government.
2. The common theme in all these conspiracy theories is that a secret society is plotting to achieve world domination by creating a one-world government thus ushering a "New World Order".
3. It's origin is in the conspiracy theories that developed around the Illuminati.
4. There have been numerous advocates throughout history but the vast majority belong to the American secular and religious right.
5. The notion of a secret society plotting to rule the world started after the French Revolution. It's hard to say exactly when conspiracy theorists attached the term "New World Order" to this conspiracy but it seems to have started after H.G. Wells wrote his book The New World Order in 1940. I'm actually looking into that.
6. President Bush's use of the term "New World Order" led to the rise of the militia movement in 1990s.
7. Pat Robertson embraced New World Order conspiracism and dissiminated it to other Christian fundamentalists.
8. The Illuminati is the archetypal secret society and conspiracy theorists believe it to be the secret society behind the New World Order conspiracy. The myth of the Illuminati inspired the development of other conspiracy theories.
9. Many anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists believe The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is the manifesto of the people plotting to create a New World Order one-world government. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion inspired other conspiracy theories related to the New World Order.

--Loremaster (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks! You've helped narrow down the issues tremendously for me. And I acknowledge the tremendous amount of work, effort, and dedication, you've obviously put into this article. Now I wish to clarify much more narrowly the issues I have with this article.

1. I ask you to take notice of the singular regarding the first word of the title: "theory," and not "theories."
2. So this article about ONE theory - conspiracy theory, and calling something that is a pejorative.
3. However, as the above shows, your article appears to be a study of several such "waco" theories under the umbrella term "New World Order," as if scholars have grouped these theories together under that term.

• Perhaps the article should be split in two? --Ludvikus (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting to understand where your confusion comes from.

1. The term "conspiracy theory" in the title of the article does not refer to a singular New World Order conspiracy theory but it is used as a synonym for conspiracism.
2. The article is not about one theory it is a (critical) study of all conspiracy theories directly or indirecly related to the concept of a New World Order.
3. Scholars, like political scientist Micheal Barkun, have in fact grouped all these conspiracy theories under the term "New World Order"

There is absolutely no need to split the article even if there is one unifying conspiracy theory about commonly denoted by the term "New World Order". --Loremaster (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

1. That's great! So we're making progress. That's delightful. I'm certainly not going to object to that (your position that the article not be split).
2. However, the article currently (at the moment) does not show that sufficiently (that it's not a mere list, or that's it's not Original research.
3. It still looks like a list, compiled, or maintain, perhaps, mostly by you.
4. So my beef is merely one of a professional editor. I'd like to make contributions in that regard - make that connection more obvious to the reader.
5. I've downloaded the two articles reviewing Michael Barkun's work you cited - and everyone else should do the same.
6. I've ordered MB's book from Amazon.com this morning - I should receive it within a week.
7. Before you discussed MB here, on this Talk page, I already realized that's extremely important in relation to this article because I systematically scrutinized ALL the footnotes.
8. I also began editing the article on him at: "[[Michael Barkun}}."
9. Now I need to know if you have any reason whatsoever if I continue editing that "stub" because I do not wish to be accused of "WP Content Forking." Do you understand me on that?
10. I also wish the edit the "stub" on Pat Robertson's book on NWO. Here, again, I'm concerned about being accused of "Content forking." Do you understand me on that"

I look forward to your reply, and hope to work through Consensus. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Primary source

The first source of the lede (footnote 2) is this (LOC):

Barkun, Michael.

Main Title: A culture of conspiracy : apocalyptic visions in contemporary America / Michael Barkun.

Published/Created: Berkeley, Calif. : University of California Press, c2003.

Description: xii, 243 p. ; 24 cm.

ISBN: 0520238052 (alk. paper)

Contents: The nature of conspiracy belief -- Millennialism, conspiracy, and stigmatized knowledge -- New world order conspiracies (I) : the new world order and the illuminati -- New world order conspiracies (II) : a world of black helicopters -- UFO conspiracy theories, 1975-1990 -- UFOs meet the new world order : Jim Keith and David Icke -- Armageddon below -- UFOs and the search for scapegoats (I) : anti-Catholicism and anti-Masonry -- UFOs and the search for scapegoats (II) : anti-Semitism among the aliens -- September 11th : the aftermath.

--Ludvikus (talk) 23:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America is the primary source for not only the second paragraph of the lede but the entire article. The author is Michael Barkun, a political scientist who has extensively studied conspiracism in American culture in general and New World Order conspiracy theories in particular. I strongly suggest you read his book since you seem to not be familiar with the topic. Until you do, I suggest you read the following professional reviews of the book:

1. Daniel Pipes's Michael Barkun on Old Conspiracies, New Beliefs

2. Paul S. Boyer's The Strange World of Conspiracy Theories.

--Loremaster (talk) 14:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Topic of the article

What is this article supposed to be about?

1. By it's name, it appears to be about a pejorative, a particular conspiracy theory: "New World Order."
2. Yet it in fact (by examining its content) it purports to be a scholarly study of various particular conspiracy theories.

--Ludvikus (talk) 01:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you ask questions that are obviously answered by reading and understanding the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article... --Loremaster (talk) 01:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• We know that in 1920 Henry Ford spent more money than anyone else to spread modern antisemitism. He did this in part by publishing the "The International Jew" which is based on a tract that first appeared in the Russian Empire in 1903; that text commonly goes under the name or title of "Protocols of the Elders of Zion."

So what's your point? --Loremaster (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• The article here appears to be your WP:Original research which, at this stage, looks like it's unable to pin down the source of this discredited conspiracy theory. In fact, the article appears like a study of several conspiracies - a study which you made. But Wikipedia does not allow you to engage in a study of what all these different conspiracies have in common.

--Ludvikus (talk) 02:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that I don't understand how someone who is utterly ignorant about a topic can have the audacity to judge an article on the subject, your accusation is obviously ridiculous. Everyone can see that almost all the sentences or paragrahs in this article have references. These references are to reliable sources: Political scientists, such as Micheal Barkun, and investigative reporters, such as Chip Berlet, who have extensively studied conspiracism in American culture in general and New World Order conspiracy theories in particular. They are the ones who have studied what all these different conspiracy theories have in common. Furthermore, although I greatly revamped this article from the piece of trash it used to be, most of the conspiracy theories were listed here by other people (many of whom were conspiracy theorists who want to use Wikipedia to promote their pet conspiracy theories). So give me break, will you? --Loremaster (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• I've just tagged sections for {{cleanup|section}}. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Before adding a cleanup tag, you have to explain here why you think the article or the section is not up to Wikipedia's standards of quality. --Loremaster (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a rule I never heard of. Since 2006, I've never seen a prior discussion by any editor regarding the posting of a Tag. Quite the contray, the obvious purpose of such WP Tags is to spare editors the need of posting lengthier messages, when the Tag accomplishes that purpose more efficiently, quickly, and effectively. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Loremaster is correct as to the suggested action; most tags even have a talk page pointer field to include. However, it's only required on re-adding a tag after it was removed. And editors blocked for disruption should be very careful that they're not considered to be disruptive, or they may be blocked for longer than their previous block (2 years?) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue here I've asked, is: What's the Topic of the Article? --Ludvikus (talk) 07:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories about a New World Order. --Loremaster (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/New World Order (conspiracy theory)/archive1

I've just found that these objections existed as stated above. These are exactly the issues I'm concerned about. --Ludvikus (talk) 06:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Although I should have done this before, I have now responded to all the objections on the archived peer review page for the New World Order conspiracy theory article. --Loremaster (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm very glad to discover this revelation this very instant. I look forward reading that, and studying it very closely. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Protocols of the Elders of Zion

• You've argued strongly (User:Loremaster) that the above need not be listed in the "See also" section of the DAB page because "New World Order (conspiracy theory)" is all about that.
• Yet you just removed the [[WikiProject Jewish history]] tag.
• That appears inconsistent.
• Please explain your reasoning.

--Ludvikus (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

1. The discussion about the "See also" section is completely irrelevant to this debate.
2. Although it is obvious that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an important part of Jewish history, I don't think you'll find historians who argue that New World Order conspiracism is a significant part of Jewish history .
3. The {{Antisemitism}} tag you added to the article itself not only defaces it but it gives the false impression that antisemitism is the dominant theme of New World Order conspiracy theories when, I would argue, that anticommunism and anti-Satanism have been far more dominant themes.

--Loremaster (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• You cannot have it both ways! Either the Warrant for Genocide is a major part of NWO(ct). In which case it's antisemitic and a part of Jewish history. And if it's not, then you have no business discussing it in your article. There's no room for you to fudge on this. There's no way to be a rational skeptic about the Jewish peril, or the International Jew. The appropriate word in this context is crackpot, not rational skeptic. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

*Sigh* The Protocols of Elders of Zion is only mentioned in this article because it is was enventually incorporated in old conspiracy theories about a New World Order and is widely considered to be influential in the development of new conspiracy theories about a New World Order that have nothing to do with antisemitism. --Loremaster (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• You're apparently unaware that you're partly confirming my position regarding Satanism. In 1905 this subject was so fused: Serge Nilus published Chapter 12 The Protocols as part of his book on the Coming of the Antichrist. That means you're showing more evidence that the NWO that your topic involves both Antisemitism and Jewish history. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you ever discuss your position regarding satanism? Regardless, I'm not denying that some New World Order conspiracy theories are antisemitic in nature. However, I don't think it rises to level that this article should be included in the Wikiproject about Jewish History or have the Antisemitism template added to the article. Think for a moment. Why have none of the people who are extremely dedictated to articles about Jewish history and antisemitism ever thought of doing it before you? Because it may not be that significant.

That being said, I'm open-minded so give me some time to think about this more to see if you may be right. --Loremaster (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Regarding Satanism/Antichrist, look here: Velikoe v malom i antikhrist, kak blizkaia politicheskaia vozmozhnost. [11].
2. Are you willing to change the article name to: New world order (conspiracy theories)? If not, why not? If so, why so?
3. Your question about what I think of other editors is inappropriate, irrelevant, and immaterial.

--Ludvikus (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

1. I will look at it but you haven't convinced me that you understand my point of view on this issue.
2. I'm opposed to changing the title of the article until a significant number of Wikipedia contributors support such a change because 1) the term "New World Order" is always capitalized in conspiracy theories to distinguish it from the use of term "new world order" in internatianal relations theory, and 2) the term "conspiracy theory" is used in the title as an umbrella term for all conspiracy theories and, more importantly, as a synomym for the term conspiracism.

--Loremaster (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not see any reason for this article to fall under the scope of the Jewish History wiki project. While some forms of NWO conspiracy theories may involve antisemitism, all cases are Fringe theories, and thus would not be considered part of history. However, it's really the sort of question that can go up on that project's talkpage. Wikiprojects have much more to do with groups of people devoted to forms of article improvement than it does article organization.

I do not see any reason to change the article name. The concept of this article can be considered as both a singular and plural entity. Thus either name causes confusion. This confusion should be settled by a good quality lead sentence. I have no strong concern about the current state of the lead sentence, but I'm sure there's always room for improvement in any article. -Verdatum (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded the Protocols of the Elders of Zion section of the article with Barkun's analysis. --Loremaster (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

FUI: Although the first time this was printed was in 1903 in the Russian Empire, 1919, and heavily in 1920, was when this text, in various editions and translations, translation from the Russian language, appeared in the West as published Newspaper articles (serialized), pamphlets, and books. So there could not possibly be any relation between The Protocols and "New World Order." So I edited this article section to reflect this fact. But your colleague, Arthur, Reverted this contribution of mine. So I'd like to know where you stand on this specific issue. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm opposed to all your non-sensical edits. After you read the Barkun interview I posted a link to, it should be obvious to you that a conspiracy theorist in 2009 can incorporate The Protocols in his New World Order conspiracy theory by claiming that it is the manifesto of those who plot on behalf of the New World Order. Why is this so hard for you to understand? --Loremaster (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Clarification: I can see your misunderstanding. So I'll clarify. I just was trying to tell you that The Protocols had no impact on the West until after 1919, or 1920. They did not yet "exist", so to speak. And the fact that they appeared in Russia in 1903 is therefore misleading, don't you agree? --Ludvikus (talk) 22:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think it is misleading to mention the fact that the Protocols appeared in Russia in 1903 since it doesn't contradict the fact that they had no impact on the West until after 1919. In other words, what the hell is your point? --Loremaster (talk) 00:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• FUI:: The foremost authority (standard work) on The Protocols (a photocopy of which I own) is:

    Robert Singerman, "The American Career of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion",
    American Jewish History', Vol. 71 (1981), pp. 48–78.

--Ludvikus (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Objection: This kind of editing of this page is not helpful: [12]. I would appreciate it if remarks were made here, at the bottom. I should not have to remind experienced editors that this distorts the nature of the chronology of the discussion. The editor who wish to discuss the issue of The Protocols as they were in 1903, as opposed to 1919, should do so here. At the same time I feel obliged to worn editors that the above no longer reflects accurately the chronology of the discussion - unless perhaps one looks at the dates of the signature, and I myself no longer trust their accuracy. Whoever wishes to study the Diffs may do so. But I do not wish to engage in any Confrontations. I just ask that comments be made at the bottom, as WP custom requires. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk)

*Yawn* Nothing written in the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion section of the article has ever contradicted the fact the Protocols had no impact on the West until after 1919. You are arguing about a problem that only exists in your convoluted mind! --Loremaster (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Weasel words

Ludvikus claims that "rational skeptics" are weasel words. There are people and organizations that practice and promote rational skepticism. In general they favor science and are opposed to what they call pseudoscience and quackery. They are generally skeptical of parapsychology and the paranormal. Furthermore, they are most serious critics of conspiracism including New World Order conspiracy theories. Political scientist Micheal Barkun is among them so I don't understand how anyone can argue that "rational skeptics" are words that are ambiguous and not supported by facts. That being said, I might change it to "skeptics and skeptical organizations" or simply "skeptics" to avoid it being disputed again. --Loremaster (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Never said that. I believe that's a WP:Good faith error on your part. The only thing I said on this point is this: "some." But why waist each others' time about who said what? You've reverted the page - so I object to each occurrence of "some" in your article. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you are objecting to. If you don't have a problem with the term "rational skeptics", why do you have a problem with the word "some"? If it's because I didn't mention who these rational skeptics are, you should have added a {{who?}} tag instead of a {{weasel word}} tag. That being said, the rational skeptic in question is political scientist Michael Barkun, he was explicitly mentioned in the lead for a long time until someone deleting him without explanation. I've now restored him. --Loremaster (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• A simple other point here now: Footnote 1 is in the List of references. But strangely, it's not attached to anything. Can you look for it, and correct this purely technical matter? --Ludvikus (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Footnote 1 is attached to the Information Awareness Office image in the lead section. --Loremaster (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You're obviously not understanding me. I've been trying to tell you that [1] does not attach to anything! With what sentence (of the "lede") is Footnote 1 supposed to go? --19:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I see you've now corrected it. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Now it's missing again! --Ludvikus (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what your problem is but Footnote 1 has always been and continues to be attached to the text under the image at the top of the article. If you're having such basic problems understanding the article, perhpas you should consider leaving it alone. --Loremaster (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I see. I stand corrected. However, I've never seen a footnote attached to an image at Wikipedia. That's why I missed it. If I want to know about a WP image, I click on the image, and go to the image page. I urge you to make the appropriate change so others will not be misled as I have. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It is the text under the image (not the image itself) that is being footnoted in order to support the claim that this image is connected to the topic of the article. --Loremaster (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

1. The actual Image Link to Uncle Sam apparently contradicts your Footnote [1]: [13].
2. Researching this Footnote 1 now tells us that your making reference to the Information Awareness Office organized in 2002.
3. So your article attempts to promote the conspiracy theory, intead of teach us what it is? --Ludvikus (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
4. It gets even "better" - or worse (depending on whether "believes" or not): F1 actually goes here: Total "Terrorism" Information Awareness (TIA), [14].. How come there's no explanation of the connection, relevence? --Ludvikus (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You are really starting to irrate me...

1. Please explain to me how the actual image link to Uncle Same contradicts Footnote 1.
2. Yes I am.
3. Of course not. As the text explains, we are explaining why this image came to be associated with New World Order conspiracism.
4. Several articles that explain the connection are archived on that site.

--Loremaster (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Please don't take things personally! How many times must I say that I recognize your hard work?
• My "attack" is on the Article, not on you, or your work!
• I'm "irritated" by the Article, not by you, until this moment that you said I "irritated" you. So I'll stop now until you calm down.
• Besides, there are other editors in the Space of Wikipedia besides you and me.
• I do wish to continue. But not until you calm down, and stop accusing me of "irritating" you. That's a "personal attack" on me.
• I will not be provoked into a "Confrontation" by you. Good by. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe Loremaster's comment is a personal attack in this case. The editor is expressing his own personal feelings. Still, it's not a terribly appropriate thing to discuss on a talkpage; a better solution when irritated is to take a wikibreak.

I can understand the confusion with the footnote on the image. I've personally never been very fond of the image, and never felt that much any image would be appropriate for this article. (Unless you can find an image of a protester with a sign that says "Beware the New World Order!" or something.) -Verdatum (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Verdatum, you are right that my specific comment wasn't a personal attack. However, I have to say something that I can't deny is a personal attack: Although I am grateful that Ludvikus is not a conspiracy theorist trying to edit this article to promote his pet conspiracy theory, I find his ignorance of the topic of this article, his idiosyncratic interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines, and the zealousness that compels him to hastily revamp articles he takes interest in quite irrating. That being said, Verdatum, I obviously disagree with you on the notion that no image is appropriate for this article. I think images that are associated with New World Order conspiracism are appropriate if they are contextualized in a skeptical manner. --Loremaster (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is given at the top - Weasel words. According to WP:Weasel words include "some" and "many". I've place the Tags as WP permits me, but you removed them. Why? Talking about me and what's wrong with me as a Wikipedian does not address the issue of why my Tags were, Deleted or Reverted. I still have heard no response to my obviously legitimate query. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

As I explained above, I'm not sure I understand what you are objecting to. If you don't have a problem with the term "rational skeptics", why do you have a problem with the word "some"? If it's because I didn't mention who these rational skeptics are, you should have added a {{who?}} tag instead of a {{weasel word}} tag. That being said, the rational skeptic in question is political scientist Michael Barkun, he was explicitly mentioned in the lead for a long time until someone deleting him without explanation. I've now restored him. Regardless, I have deleted the word "some". This particular dispute is over. --Loremaster (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. Wikipedia (not me) discourages the use of ("weasel") words like "some" or "many." If you want to know why, it's better that you read the WP rule for it. But the purpose of the Tag is just to Flag these words so that they can be eliminated. It's up to the re-writing editor to decide how to replace them. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

For once, you may be right. However, please read this page: Wikipedia:Embrace weasel words. --Loremaster (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Example from the current version:

“ Some Christians saw Bush as signaling the End Times betrayal by a world leader. ”

• That's simply unacceptable. And I want you to agree that I may Flag these words in the current version to alert all editors to there existence in the text so that the text could be improved accordingly. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow... you have proven to us all that you are an idiot if you seriously think this quote from a reliable source can violate a WP rule about weasel words. I'm speechless... --Loremaster (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

---

• Restored immediately below is the True dialog before the Vandalization immediately above (and I do NOT mean the method of quotation:

"As I explained above, I'm not sure I understand what you are objecting to. If you don't have a problem with the term "rational skeptics", why do you have a problem with the word "some"? If it's because I didn't mention who these rational skeptics are, you should have added a {{who?}} tag instead of a {{weasel word}} tag. That being said, the rational skeptic in question is political scientist Michael Barkun, he was explicitly mentioned in the lead for a long time until someone deleting him without explanation. I've now restored him. Regardless, I have deleted the word "some". This particular dispute is over. --Loremaster (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. Wikipedia (not me) discourages the use of ("weasel") words like "some" or "many." If you want to know why, it's better that you read the WP rule for it. But the purpose of the Tag is just to Flag these words so that they can be eliminated. It's up to the re-writing editor to decide how to replace them. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Example from the current version:

    "Some Christians saw Bush as signaling the End Times betrayal by a world leader."

• That's simply unacceptable. And I want you to agree that I may Flag these words in the current version to alert all editors to there existence in the text so that the text could be improved accordingly. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

---

• Notice how the Dialogue has been deliberately changed - WP:Vandalism - to give the discussion a different meaning. It's not the "Personal Attacks" that bother me so much, as the deliberate distortion which misinforms other editors as to the meaning of the discussion! --Ludvikus (talk) 02:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
• PS1:: (1) The "quotation" in the Box is from the Content page of this article. (2) But in that Content page there are no quotes, no quotation marks around the single sentence, no indication whatsoever that said sentence is an actual quote from some other source! --Ludvikus (talk) 02:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
• PS2:: The "quoted" sentence at issue is in fact a Paraphrase supported by this Footnote/Reference #11: ^ a b c d e f Berlet, Chip (Fall 1998, revised 4/15/99). How Apocalyptic and Millennialist Themes Influence Right Wing Scapegoating and Conspiracism. http://www.publiceye.org/apocalyptic/Dances_with_Devils_2.html. Retrieved 2009-07-23. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• *sigh* I didn't vandalize anything. I simply changed the quotation format in order for the page to more easy to read. And if you actually had read Berlet's essay How Apocalyptic and Millennialist Themes Influence Right Wing Scapegoating and Conspiracism in its entirety you would know that this quotation is of a paragraph that can be found in the Patriots and Armed Militias Movement section. Don't you get tired of embarrassing yourself? --Loremaster (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm starting to think I'm being punked because Ludvikus has to be one of the biggest jokes I've seen on Wikipedia in long time. I'm actually starting to miss User:Batvette! --Loremaster (talk) 02:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Issue: What is the Consensus regarding my Wikipedia right to Flag WP:Weasel words on the Content page; in the article? Do you know? Will you Revert my Tags if I post them? --Ludvikus (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• As I explained before, I will oppose all your non-sensical proposals and I recommend you read the Wikipedia:Embrace weasel words page for a view on why so-called weasel words are helpful and appropriate in some cases. That being said, I have recently removed many words that you consider "weasel words" only because the article sounds better without them. --Loremaster (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

New World Order (conspiracy theory) → New World Order (conspiracy theories) —

1. There is no such thing a "theory," particularly a "Conspiracy theory of the 'New World Order'" phenomena, the alleged subject of this article.
2. There only is a plurality of "conspiracy theories, in the pejorative sense, that false under the label "New World Order." --Ludvikus (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support: For the reason(s) given above, and discussed extensively on this Talk page and elsewhere. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: As I explained several times in on this talk page, the term "conspiracy theory" in the title of the article is meant as an umbrella for all conspiracy theories as well as as a synonym for the term "conspiracism". The issue of whether or not the term "New World Order" is used pejoratively by conspiracy theorists is irrelevant so I don<t understand why you can keep bringing it up. --Loremaster (talk) 03:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• "Umbrella" you say. So you agree that there are more than one: therefore not "theory" but "theories."

• If your writing "about" these diverse, sufficiently related conspiracy theories so that they fall under one label, "NWO," and you are writing for Wikipedia, you must accept that these all have been debunked by the scholarly world. There's no way you can write about them as a "neutral skeptic." And if you wish to summarize the plots claimed, it is demanded of you that you give extremely precise references, or quotes. I do not believe it is possible for you to generalize over what they all have in common, as if their is "reason to their madness." Michael Barkun is a scholar whom you can quote or paraphrase. But you cannot make these sweeping summaries and generalizations as if you yourself were Michael Barkun. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• So (1) is the article about all this debunked un-scholarly belief in flying saucers? Or is it neutral like the holocaust deniers (and [[Ahmadinejad) who wishes to keep an "open mind" and consider the possibility that the Holocaust actually didn't happen? Is that the kind of skeptical openness you wish the article to present? Do you want us to consider the possibility that there's some truth to these NWO theories? If so, I submit to you that Wikipedia's demand for reputable scholarship precludes us from writing such an article here. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Your rant convinced me even more that not only are you utterly ignorant about the topic of New World Order conspiracism but that you are unable to grasp the rational skeptical perspective from which this article is written. So I'm not going to waste my time debating you. --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• PS: I find Footnote [3] extremely informative: [15]. But our article does not reflect the views and analysis of Michael Barkun, a distinguished political science professor and scholar. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Several passages in this article, especially in the lead, paraphrase statements that Barkun wrote in his book so the notion that this article does not reflect his views and analysis is absurd. Until you read his book (or other like it), I'm not interested in idiosyncratic views and analysis of this article. --Loremaster (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• "Barkun writes about the spread of conspiracy culure:"'

"Prior to the early 1990s, New World Order conspiracism was limited to two subcultures, primarily the militantly antigovernment right, and secondarily Christian fundamentalists concerned with end-time emergence of the Antichrist." (Culture of Conspiracy 179)

• That's the analysis of this scholar. So our article should be accordingly structured. (unless a better structure is found by another scholar.) --Ludvikus (talk) 04:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• The article is primarily about New World Order conspiracy theories and secondarily about New World Order conspiracy theorists. The fact that the militia movement and Christian fundamentalists have been a source of New World Order conspiracy theories is mentioned in several sections of this article. I'm not opposed to going into details but I don't think it is necessary to restructure the article to do so. Lastly, as Barkun explains, New World Order conspiracism was limited to two subcultures prior to the early 1990s. However, since then, New World Order conspiracism has been embraced by other subcultures and has also seeped into maintream culture. --Loremaster (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Opposed The article title is a disambiguation intended to mean "the scope of this particular article is the concept of an NWO as a conspiracy theory; as opposed to a wrestling federation, or a villain from the Areosmith video game." It is not meant to imply that there is a singular agreed upon conspiracy theory, and this is easily clarified in the lead sentence/section. Pluralizing the term will imply something closer to List of New World Order conspiracy theories; which I don't want, as Stand alone list articles force a specific organization to the article that restricts the ability to compare and contrast common elements of the various theories. -Verdatum (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose for good or bad (and here the singular is preferable), the singular is the standard naming convention for articles. Nearly all CT have as many variations as they have adherents (sometimes more!) Verbal chat 15:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: This article has been substantially maintained and edited by only one editor (not me). After significant discourse said editor explained many times that its a study of diverse (a plurality) of different conspiracy theories, some rational, some irrational. How those various conspiracies happened to fall under that one heading, or name, "New World Order," was never accounted for. So I merely accepted the assertion of said editor that there are these relatively distinct theories. In addition, a close scrutiny of the Content of the article does show such a plurality (it includes, for example, a discussion of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I actually believe, based on Michael Barkun's scholarship, that there is a Single phenomena to be dubbed by the acronym "NWO." But my proposal was merey to conform the work of said editor with the title. However, if the Consensus is that there is One phenomena here, then the Content of the article should conform to that view. I therefore request further clarification from the community as to what makes New World Order a singular phenomena, and what the subject of the Article is. And based on that - the Content of the article should conform to this finding or consensus of the editors. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Until you actually read Barkun's schorlarly work (rather than a short interview), no one should take anything you have to say seriously... --Loremaster (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I see neither consensus nor serious discussion that makes the claim that there is "a singular phenomena". Merely that the article title should remain unchanged. The scope of this article is documented conspiracy theories that invoke the phrase "New World Order". I can see no reason for that scope to change either. -Verdatum (talk) 18:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment 1: Your contradiction immediately above is impossible for me to grasp. Please explain yourself. (1) You insist that the WP Title end with the word "theory." (2) Yet at the same time you speak of "theories" in the same single sentence. My training in logic is that contradictions are meaningless. So I ask you for clarification. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment 2: Perhaps you mean this New World Order (List of conspiracy theories)? --Ludvikus (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment 3: Or this: New World Order (Conspiracism) --Ludvikus (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If the article was remaindered to an enumeration of the various conspiracy theories that invoke NWO, it would be a Stand alone list, and per naming convention, would be titled List of New World Order conspiracy theories. This article however, addresses all uses of the term NWO when used as a conspiracy theory; and as such goes beyond a clear cut enumeration.

The naming conventions for disambiguated titles are discussed at WP:NCDAB. The word in parenthesis is either the generic class or the subject or context. Here, that generic class is the class of conspiracy theory. In this sense, conspiracy theory is an abstract object (or possibly a mass noun), not a count noun. Within the article, it explains there are variations on the central concept. In that sense, there are many different conspiracy theories, using the term in it's count noun form. However, the abstract object is able to encompass this concept, and is thus (IMHO) appropriate for the article title. -Verdatum (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a million! I find that very helpful. It helps in the enumeration of the issues involved affecting how the article should be draft - at least it does so in my mind. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment 4: List of New World Order conspiracy theories is fine with me - since that's what the article is actually evolving into as we speak (or rather write). --Ludvikus (talk) 07:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment 5: In the alternative, the [List of] Conspiracy theories within the article should be drastically {{Cleanup}}ed of its reciting, or summarizing the theories listed since we have an article for each at Wikipedia. What's needed instead a presentation of the connectedness of each particular, older, non-NWO CT to the new phenomena. As things stand no average reader can possibly decipher the link. Giving a Footnote to a Reference does not obviate the fact that the relations presented are obscure in the extreme. It sure looks like WP:Original research. I'd like see presented exactly which scholar said what regarding the connection. Not a confused recital of the Old CT's mixed with an obscure presentation of the New NWO. That might make things peaceful, and stabilize the article. --Ludvikus (talk) 08:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The article would need to be significantly expanded before it could WP:FORK off such a list. There is probably not sufficient notability supporting the concept of multiple NWO theories from third party sources. The article is not large enough to require a fork for reasons of WP:SIZE. So it's fine as it is. -Verdatum (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment One of the basic naming conventions is that all articles are titled in the singular, except those rare cases that are inevitably plural (scissors, Andrew Sisters, etc). See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals).   Will Beback  talk  08:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Question: Can you please be more specific, and explain how what you just said applies to the case at hand? --Ludvikus (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• The practical application to the proposals is probably that "list of conspiracy theories" or "conspiracy theory", or another singular title, would be preferable to "conspiracy theories".   Will Beback  talk  08:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Will. Ludvikus' proposal is rejected. --Loremaster (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not, please give the proposal the standard seven days for discussion. -Verdatum (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I meant to say that the proposal has been succesfully argued to be a bad one according to Wikipedia guidelines. I have no problem waiting 7 days before closing this discussion but I am confident it won't change anything. --Loremaster (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Abstain: I've changed my vote from "Support" for this reason: User:Loremaster has argued, to my understanding, that the Article is not intended as a mere List. There remains still to be settled whether or not, as written, this article contains WP:Original research. A singular relationship among diverse conspiracies which are vaguely related, entitle the subject matter to be treated as one remains to be established. Whether this article conforms, or will conform, to such scholarship as that of Michael Barkun, also remains to be seen. --Ludvikus (talk) 06:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• When you actually read Barkun's work of scholarship on New World Order conspiracism and realize that this article is primary based on his research in which he firmly establishes a singular relationship among diverse conspiracy theories, you will (hopefully) drop these accusations that this article contains "original research" on this particular point. --Loremaster (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality in Question

PLEASE CONSIDER: Personally, I question the implications of this article, and don't know that it really qualifies as "neutral" at all. Now that we have so many open advocates of NWO, should it really be prefaced as a conspiracy theory and thrown in the mix with things most would deem nonsensical? At one time it was an absurdity, but now that there are actually people pushing for one world government, I think it is horribly miscategorized. It should be expressed as a concept, not a conspiracy theory.

I'm not an advocate myself, I find the idea terrifying and impractical. I certainly wouldn't want people to read this, and as a result laugh of NWO or OWG as impossible lunacy and turn a blind eye to the issue. That's how ignorance is bred, and we should be promoting awareness instead.

I just wanted to bring attention to this and see if anyone else had a similar perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.128.55 (talk) 07:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Please cite the many people who openly advocate for one-world government (while keeping in mind that the term "new world order" doesn't necessarily mean "one-world government"). --Loremaster (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a nonsensical reply and not at all what the concern is, which is exactly what mine was. The article, while certainly having a professional appearance, still seeks to ridicule beliefs in any tangible movement of corporate/government entities to consolodate power globally and neutralize democratic power of individuals to the detriment of humanity. While I may be on the same page with you that it's not a "conspiracy theory" and simply the socio-economic theory of "empire" between the lead of this page and the disambiguation of "New World Order" it still leaves the reader with a choice of "haha, you must believe in Aliens too!" or the "nothing to see here, move along" presentation of the NWO political page. It is interesting that this potential editor asks I just wanted to bring attention to this and see if anyone else had a similar perspective. when many have expressed the same concern in comments within the last year but have been sent into archives as if they were old news or sufficiently addressed. As the page has been improved but still has much of the same tone, I'm not sure it has. What the article does actually is reinforce conspiracy theories in the method of its content in raising each rationale and shoot down its foundation, and in many sections does so less than credibly- such as the industrial surveillance section, which purports to compare the masses being fitted with RFID chip implants with the invention of the printing press. Anyone should be insulted that this should make them walk away thinking oh, okay, it's not happening then.Batvette (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Batvette, there is nothing nonsensical about my reply. An anonymous user claims that there are now so many open advocates of a New World Order in the sense of a One World Government. As the article explains, the open advocates of NWO (such as Gordon Brown and Henry Kissinger) have NEVER and are NOT advocating establishing a one-world government! They are simply advocating a reform of the dysfunctional global financial system. Regardless of whether or not such reform would only benefit the transnational capitalist class while continuing the exploitation of workers worldwide, this is a far cry from the bureaucratic collectivist one-world government envisioned by many conspiracy theorists when they use the term "New World Order". I don't know how many times I have to explain this to you until it sinks in but this article is ONLY about paranoid conspiracy theories about a New World Order. IF you are interested in documenting the "tangible movement of corporate/government entities to consolodate power globally and neutralize democratic power of individuals to the detriment of humanity" in a rational manner while basing all your claims on the works of political scientists like William I. Robinson (see his essay Towards a Global Ruling Class: Globalization and the Transnational Capitalist Class) there are more appropriate articles on Wikipedia where this can be done. For example, it might be a good idea to expand the Superclass article or create a Global power elite article. As for your repeated accusation that the takeaway from this article is "nothing to see here, move along", I'm not sure how you can say that if you have read and understood the last paragraph of the Alleged conspirators section of the article. No one is denying that governments and corporations are involved in doing things that are both unethical and illegal, such as NSA warrantless surveillance, but "the masses being fitted with RFID chip implants" is a perfect example of an unfounded fear that conspiracy theorists are hysterical about. I'm not trying to ridicule this belief but I am trying to refute it. Do you understand? Oh right. You never do. Regardless, in light of your criticism, I've actually improved the Surveillance-industrial complex section of the article. --Loremaster (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the article never suggests that all New World Order conspiracy theorists believe in the Alien Invasion theory. It should be obvious to you that only a faction of them believe in aliens. That being said, here is an interesting quote from Amazon.com about Barkun's book A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America:

“ Many people assume that the X-Files conspiracy theory - malevolent space aliens in cahoots with shadowy government agencies - is the brainchild of caffeinated scriptwriters with an overnight deadline. But according to this fascinating cultural study, such scenarios have a long and disturbing intellectual pedigree. Political scientist Barkun (Religion and the Racist Right: The Origins of the Christian Identity Movement) traces them to a venerable tradition of "New World Order" conspiracy theories combining fundamentalist dread of the Antichrist with secular right-wing suspicions that the powers that be are controlled by Masons, Jesuits, Jews and, above all, the Illuminati. Starting in the 1980s, extraterrestrials began to appear at the summits of these conspiracy-theory hierarchies, a process accelerated by the Internet's anarchic dissemination and recombination of myths and rumors. The resulting "improvisational millennialism" has yielded any number of baroque "superconspiracies" (one theory yokes together UFOs, the Gestapo, the Mafia and the Wobblies), but Barkun contends there are serious repercussions. As New World Order themes have infiltrated the previously apolitical UFO subculture, he argues, they have become more respectable and widespread: racialist and anti-Semitic ideologies have resurfaced in the coded guise of alien cabals, and a vast popular audience has been introduced by Hollywood to the notion that the government is a totalitarian clique in black helicopters - a view once confined to right-wing extremists. Scholarly but fluently written and free of excessive jargon, Barkun's exploration of the conspiratorial worldview combines sociological depth with a deadpan appreciation of pop culture and raises serious questions about the replacement of democracy by conspiracy as the dominant paradigm of political action in the public mind. ”

Here's to hoping that it finally helps you understand why mentioning aliens in this article is important. By the way, I find it amusing that you object to the mention of aliens but you have no problem with the mention of Satan, which is, in my opinion, a far more ridiculous belief. ;) --Loremaster (talk) 02:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

[User:Loremaster] said "there is nothing nonsensical about my reply." Your response is most certainly "non-sensical" in the sense that it had "little or no use" in responding to Anonymous' question of neutrality. I would like to submit for the record that this article in its entirety needs a neutral overhaul, starting with a reclassification from "theory" to simply "conspiracy" or "world view" or "concept" and to loose some weight. For example:

The second paragraph sets the tone for the entire article stating "The common theme in conspiracy theories about a New World Order is that a powerful and secretive group of globalists is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an autonomous world government, which would replace sovereign states and other checks and balances in international power struggles. Significant occurrences in politics and finance are speculated to be caused by an extremely influential cabal operating through many front organizations. Numerous historical and current events are seen as steps in an on-going plot to achieve world domination through secret political gatherings and decision-making processes." #1) The "common theme" referred to in this paragraph is fact and not theory (citing sources here would be redundant). #2) Where in the table of contents are these ideas addressed? You have a history of the NWO and then a jump into sub "conspiracy theories" whose central themes are not always the NWO but may involve the NWO. Perhaps a section dedicated to elaborating specifically on the "group of globalists [] conspiring to eventually rule the world" called "NWO and The Global Elite" would better meet the theme as laid out in the second paragraph. Then as is stated in second sentence we have speculations of the NWO based on "significant occurrences in politics" yet this is not specifically addressed. Again, if we are going to lead with this paragraph then a heading related to this is warranted i.e. "Historical Events of NWO Conspiracy".

Paragraph three is blatantly non-neutral as evidenced by the use of a reference to the "Social critic" Michael Barkun and begins thus: "Prior to the early 1990s, New World Order conspiracism was limited to two subcultures, primarily the militantly anti government right, and secondarily Christian fundamentalists concerned with end-time emergence of the Antichrist." #1) A source is needed here. #2) How can neutrality be maintained in introducing a topic using a critic as a source (try a skeptic)? The answer is it can not. Paragraph three continues: "that paranoid right-wing conspiracy theories about a New World Order have now not only been embraced by many left-wing conspiracy theorists but have seeped into popular culture, thereby inaugurating an unrivaled period of millenarian activity..." #1) The language leads the reader to draw conclusions on the article before even beginning to digest the substance. Eliminating the reference to paranoid right-wing conspiracy theories would begin to point us at neutrality. I do not have to time to continue but will attempt later a more in depth analysis.

In conclusion I will place bets that Loremaster will ardently defend his stance that this article is about the conspiracy theory and use this as the premise to rebuke all valid arguments referencing the lack of neutrality in my comments. I believe that Anonymous' original question was well intentioned and in line with the ethics and objective of Wikipedia by stating "That's how ignorance is bred, and we should be promoting awareness instead." 96.249.121.162 (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC) GrnEydGuy (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

1. My response was not non-sensical. I was simply trying to make a point: Before addressing the issue of neutrality raised by an anonymous user, I was trying to point out that he or she seems to have a conspiratorial misinterpretation of the term "new world order" when it is used by politicians and pundits like Brown and Kissinger. If he or she understands this, he or she would realize that the article is in fact neutral.

2. I strongly disagree with your suggestion that this article needs to be reclassified from "conspiracy theory" to something more benign. An overwhelming number of reliable academic and journalistic sources explicitly treat the concept of a "New World Order" (when articulated by militants of the secular and religious right) as a conspiracy theory. It would therefore be an act of obscurantism to present it simply as a "conspiracy" or "world view" or "concept". Furthermore, there already is an article on the new world order as a neutral concept, see new world order.

3. You claim that the "common theme" mentioned in the second paragraph of lead section of article is a fact rather than a conspiracy theory. It should be obvious to you that if you do not provide reliable sources to support such a claim it can be and is dismissed as nothing more than your personal opinion.

4. The ideas presented in the second paragraph are addressed in the Alleged conspirators section of the article, which is linked to in the table of contents.

5. If you were familiar with the use of the term "New World Order" in conspiracy theory (as documented by academics and journalists who have studied the subject) you would know that the central theme of all these conspiracy theories is in fact the New World Order or, at the very least, world domination. That being said, there already is an article on the NWO and world leaders, see new world order.

6. This article already had a section on the "historical events of the NWO conspiracy theory" but the consensus was to delete it because it quickly became a depository for conspiracy-minded contributors to Wikipedia to list whatever event he or she personally thinks is part of the NWO conspiracy (usually without providing any reliable sources to support such listing). That being said, we already discuss some of the key historical events of the NWO conspiracy theory in the Gradualism section of the article.

7. You have a profoundly flawed understanding of neutrality. 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 critical, then Wikipedia should accurately reflect this viewpoint. Thus, there is nothing non-neutral about referencing "social critics" in the third paragraph.

8. The reference for the first sentence of the third paragraph was at the end of the paragraph but I have now moved it up.

9. Contrary to the popular understanding of the word, "criticism" can be negative or positive or both since the term "critic" refers to someone who expresses a reasoned opinion on any matter especially involving a judgment of its value, truth, righteousness, beauty, or technique; while the term "social critics" refers to academics and journalists who engage in critical thinking and critical analysis to study social issues, specifically New World Order conspiracism in this case. However, I agree that the term "rational skeptic" would be much better. :)

10. The lead section of a Wikipedia article is supposed to be a concise overview of the article including its criticism section if it has one. It is therefore perfectly normal that it leads the reader to draw conclusions on the article before even beginning to digest the substance. That's the point! (see the Wikipedia article on psychic)

11. Although I have deleted the word "paranoid" only for the sake of conciseness, Wikipedia must report what reliable sources state. If they call ideas about the New World Order paranoid it would be actually be non-neutral to omit this for the sake of political correctness.

12. Promoting awareness of conspiracy theories doesn't reduce ignorance. On the contrary, as G. William Domhoff explained in an interview, "conspiracism is a disaster for progressive people because it leads them into cynicism, convoluted thinking, and a tendency to feel it is hopeless even as they denounce the alleged conspirators. Conspiracism is so contrary to what most everyday people believe and observe that it actually drives people away because they sense the tinge of craziness to it."

In conclusion, I have ardently defended my stance based on a better understanding of Wikipedia guidelines regarding neutrality. That being said, I thank you for helping me improve the article. --Loremaster (talk) 10:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"Paragraph three is blatantly non-neutral as evidenced by the use of a reference to the "Social critic" Michael Barkun and begins thus" To be honest, I'm not that familiar with Michael Barkun, but he's a published author in some very prestigious academic journals including The American Historical Review[16] and is called an expert by The Miami Herald[17]. In writing this article, we should be citing established experts. That's what we're supposed to do as Wikipedia editors. The way to argue that citing Barkun is against WP:NPOV is to find other established experts with similar credentials who disagree with Barkun. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Loremaster pointed me here because I've participated in this article in the past. I believe the original anonymous poster's question is a perfectly legitimate one, and Loremaster's replies do not appear, to me, to be non-sensical; they just might not address the desired concerns in all cases.

All sides appear to be using subtle forms of personal attacks; this does not aid a discussion, and it should be avoided. Do not judge or voice disagreement in people's personal beliefs (separate from provable facts). Do not predict another user's response, it fails to Assume Good Faith.

The concept of a genuine movement towards a singular global government is a separate topic, and not appropriate for an article with this title. This article is for (my own miserable paraphrase off the top of my head) the discussion of the conspiracy theory that there actually exists a secretive governing organization, or an effort to instate such an entity, referred to as a "New World Order". I don't know if there is an article related to the concept of a singular global government, but regardless, the discussion is off-topic to this article.

If the Michael Barkun quote is not cited, it should be. It probably wouldn't be something too difficult to track down. If a paragraph is entirely based on a single source, it is considered acceptable to include a single citation footnote. I've seen it included after the first sentence, and at the end of the paragraph, and I believe both styles are perfectly acceptable. The only non-neutral aspect of the quote itself is possibly it's positioning. I'd need to review the state of the article to have an opinion on that.

If Barkun is refuted by other sources, he is all the more worth mentioning, because people took the time to address his statement; thus serving as a secondary source. If I recall correctly, this is covered in WP:FRINGE. Without such sources, relaying any conclusions he draws constitutes usage as a primary source, and is only appropriate assuming it is a reliable source, and thus, held with some esteem. Based on Loremaster'sA Quest For Knowledge comment, this appears to be the case. -Verdatum (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

1. There actually has been a relatively neutral Wikipedia article on the concept of a singular global government for a long time, see world government.

2. For those of haven't and/or can't read Barkun's book A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America, I recommend you read the following reviews: Daniel Pipes's article Michael Barkun on Old Conspiracies, New Beliefs and Paul S. Boyer's essay The Strange World of Conspiracy Theories.

3. I don't think GrnEydGuy was suggesting that Barkun wasn't an expert or couldn't be used as a reliable source or that a quote of his work needed to be cited with an exact source. He seemed to be questioning whether it is neutral to mention the opinion of a critic in the lead section of the article. As I've explained, of course we can and we should.

5. I won't deny the criticism that I haven't assumed good faith especially when it comes to dealing with User:Batvette but, in light of our previous exchanges (which can be found in the archives), I think I am justified in assuming bad faith. That being said, I will strive to be more civil.

--Loremaster (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I've now added the exact source for the Micheal Barkun quote: New Internationalist Magazine supplement interview: Michael Barkun. --Loremaster (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

May I remind everyone of the very first line in this article... This article is about the use of the term “New World Order” in conspiracy theory. For its use in international relations theory, see new world order. In other words, we draw a sharp line between how conspiracy theorists use the term "New World Order", and how others use the term. I think a lot of what is being talked about in this thread relates to the other article. Blueboar (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Blueboar, that's what I get for not reviewing the article before adding a 3rd opinion ;) I think your comment answers the original issue of this thread quite well. -Verdatum (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I added that disclaimer line after this neutrality dispute erupted. Perhaps I should have added it a long time to avoid such disputes but I'm convinced the some people still won't get it... :/ --Loremaster (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason for this outburst, or explosion of opinions, demanding neutrality, is due, in fact, to a simple phenomena: a failure to pay an extremely close attention to the sources and references. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense.

Well, perhaps not. The reason for your outburst may be that you haven't looked at the references.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ludvikus, I'm not sure if you are confusing two different issues but let me educate you on the problem this article had before you became one. Until recently, there have been 4 groups of contributors to the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article.

1. Rational skeptics who want this article to be best example of a critical analysis of New World Order conspiracism.
2. Cranks who actually believe in a New World Order conspiracy and want to edit the article so that it emphasizes and promotes their pet conspiracy theory about a New World Order.
3. Cranks who believe that the New World Order is not a conspiracy theory but a fact. They often edit the article only to delete the word “theory”.
4. Reasonable but misguided invidivuals who are concerned about the rise of the transnational capitalist class but, unfortunately, have embraced New World Order conspiracism instead of Marxist analysis. They wish that paranoid New World Order conspiracy theories involving the Illuminati, Freemasons, Elders of Zion, Nazis, alien overlords, and transhumanists would be deleted so that the article solely focuses on the Round Table conspiracy. Although I sympathize with this group, what they fail to understand is that an article on New World Order conspiracism must be comprehensive and therefore cannot exclude the conspiracy theories they judge to be ridiculous and only include the conspiracy theories they judge to be reasonable.

Now that you are here, it seems that a new group has emerged: Well-intentioned people who are utterly ignorant about a topic but feel compelled to edit it as if they are experts while totally disregarding what may have been valuable in the consensus that came before them. ;) --Loremaster (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete image

The defunct United States Information Awareness Office's original logo created controversy because the eye and pyramid has long been used as an ominous symbol in conspiracy theories about a New World Order.

It is proposed that the image to the right be deleted from the Article page.

• Support: The image to the right (also present on the Article page) depicts a now defunct USA government agency which was one of the several objects of the "conspiracy theorists'" attack, it replicates in part the Masonic image present on the Back of the dollar bill of the USA. The unexplained presentation of image with a caption "supported" by "Footnote [1]" does not justify its posting, and it therefore should be deleted. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong opppose. I will provide a better footnote as soon as possible. --Loremaster (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. It's not the footnote I object to in itself. What does the 2002 Information Awareness Office logo have to do with the article? Especially when you place it at the top of the article? If you wish to discuss the existence of a cabal during one of the Bush's administrations, do so appropriately. Is there a specific label for the "evil" doings of this of this agency? The same goes for the UN convention in San Francisco in 1945. The Wikipedia article at the moment looks like the work of an anonymous publisher of a "New World Order" crackpot. It does not make the article look scholarly at all. I cannot bear to read the rest of the article, because the lede is so horrible. It makes Wikipedia look like it itself is deliminator of one of these NWO theories, instead of writing about those who support it. It's the connection of the article I'm looking for, not just telling me where the picture is from. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The text below the image explains why the image is relevant to this article so there is nothing I can add. As for you the rest of your rant, it has convinced me that you are an idiot so I'm no longer going to waste my time engaging in you in debate. --Loremaster (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: Except for the IAO image, I've decided to remove all images until I can come up with sourced captions that explain their relevance to the topic of this article. --Loremaster (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. But that's not the issue. I want to see the connection between the Image and the Explanation in the Text of the article. You seem not to understand my point. If you write about Hitler, you can put a picture of Hitler in your article - but not a picture of Jesus Christ. I don't know how else to explasin my point to you at the moment. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• PS: I find Footnote [3] extremely informative: [18]. But our article does reflect the views and analysis of Michael Barkun, a distinguished political science professor and scholar. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Loremaster, I appreciate your willingness to compromise on this issue. I, likewise would generally prefer for any images used on this article to be related to a specific portion of the main body of the article, as opposed to relying on a caption to explain the significance. For example, if there is a portion that describes how the signing of the UN charter factors into certain published view of NWO conspiracy theorists, then I'd have no problem with the image.

I think it is also worthwhile to consider the appropriateness of an image at the beginning of the article. I don't know of any style guidelines backing this up, but I've always perceived an image at the top of an article being an explicit representation of the article topic. Images that are merely related to the topic should generally go farther down in the more detailed sections of the article. -Verdatum (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Verdatum, I disagree your opinion on this issue. However, if you can support it with official Wikipedia guidelines, I will comply. Until then, I will restore the image. --Loremaster [Unsigned]

• The Consensus (2 against 1) is to remove the image. So I urge to Revert your Reversion of my Deletion of the image. If or when you can convince a consensus to restore the image, you're more than welcome to do so. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, as you can now see from Verbal's vote below, there is no consensus (2 against 2) so I have and will continue to restore this image. --Loremaster (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose removal, the TSA was a huge boost for this CT - and the imagery was intentional, thought stupid. Also, they've merely been renamed - and I'm not even a believer! Verbal chat 15:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, you bring up a good point. First, as the {{Reqphoto}} tag indicates at the top of this talk page, this article was in desperate need of illustrative images to improve its quality in order to meet Wikipedia's criteria for good articles. Second, several mainstream academics and journalists who have written on the subject of conspiracism have used the iconic image of the eye and pyramid on the cover of their books and magazines. So it makes sense that we do the same. --Loremaster (talk) 16:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, Reqphoto is generally a request for a photo of a specific subject, not as a search for an appropriate subject. The Good article criteria only expects an image when possible, and even then, requires "images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions." Since a conspiracy theory is an abstract concept, I think it could certainly be granted good article status without an image. Still, lots of images could be appropriate for this article, such as the protest sign idea I mentioned in a previous comment.

I would much rather see a more detailed explanation of the relevance of the photo than see the photo removed from the article. If a photo of the eye in the pyramid is desired, there are better photos of that, but the article should have a cited explanation of how the image relates to NWO conspiracy theories.

I don't believe edits need to take place so rapidly. Consensus takes time, it hasn't even been 24 hours since this discussion began. -Verdatum (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I support your position completely, User:Verdatum, but will not repeated it here "Verbatim." --Ludvikus (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Verdatum, the fact that a defunct U.S. agency abandonned their logo because New World Order conspiracy theorists made a big fuss about it is extremely relevant to an encyclopedic article on the New World Order conspiracism. I would even argue that it is the perfect image. --Loremaster (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Image suggestions

• That's all wonderful. We have a Consensus. Maybe I can find an appropriate image that's in the public domain, or otherwise agrees with the "fair use" privilege's of our copyright law. So there's a consensus on this point that I see at this moment. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Dollar bill showing new world order.jpg

"Stop Ignoring the Signs of the New World Order"

• I'm back with the image I just found on the Web (I'll get the exact source in a moment too). --Ludvikus (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• And here's the exact source on the Web: [19]. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• PS: Notice that there's no copyright to the defacing text of this American dollar bill. So we need not worry about infringing the rights of this organization which calls itself: "New World Order War.com." --Ludvikus (talk) 01:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• PS2: One of the nice things for Wikipedia regarding these organizations is that they don't even bother copyrighting there "art work." --Ludvikus (talk) 02:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

All artwork is automatically copyrighted. We can't use any images found on the web unless they have explicit licenses.   Will Beback  talk  08:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

But the image of this Dollar bill is in the Public domain. And there's no "artwork" here: mere written references about the dollar bill. So we're here just like an author who briefly quotes from a book. The implication of the antonymous commentator is that the dollar bill illustrates some NWO order conspiracy. So the issue is really one of Wikipedia's Freedom of the press. --Ludvikus (talk) 08:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

We have here a written presentation by a NWO organization expounding somehow the thesis of a NWO conspiracy revealed by "Uncle Sam" by the $. And it's interesting how this sinister plot is presented: there are no statements. Merely phrases "pointing" to the dollar. We are supposed to "see" the sinister nature of "Uncle Sam" just by looking. So this is clearly NOT "artwork" protected by copyright. It involves rather Wikipedia's Freedom of the press - our strong right to respond to quasi-political commentary on the government of the United States. --Ludvikus (talk) 08:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether the underlying dollar is copyrighted or not. National mints are sensitive to having their printed materials copied. ;) Even if it weren't the commentary would be copyrighted by whoever added it, tough since it's slight that's less significant. I think that overall it's likely to slip under the barrier. I suggest lowering the resolution as much as possible, and/or using only a part of the image. There's a special noticeboard to ask about media use: Wikipedia:Media copyright questions That'd be the best place to settle any unresolved questions.   Will Beback  talk  11:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

US Currency is public domain, images should be tagged with Template:PD-USGov-money. Concerning the added text, it's a grey area. Copyright is always implied, the question is if the text is sufficiently original content to make it copyrightable. There's a helpdesk or something on WP where you can verify the copyright status of an image...too lazy to track it down myself at the moment. -Verdatum (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ludvikus, you will have to vet this image with User:Blueboar since he taken the responsibility over which Masonic-themed images are appropriate for this article. --Loremaster (talk) 01:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

1. I don't know what "vet" means.
2. I don't know what you mean by he's "taken the responsibility."
3. The Masonic "theme" is in the American dollar. So what? Many Founding Fathers were Freemasons. So what?
4. This is an image used by a New Word Order entity - so it's clearly appropriate - certainly more so than that 2002 Logo of a now defunct USA government agency which Anti-masons love to attack - because it carries that same image that's on the Dollar bill - or are you not aware of this extremely common theme of conspiracy theory advocates? --Ludvikus (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Since I know far more about the subject of conspiracy theories in general and New World Order conspiracim than you, I don't need to be lecture about what is and isn't a common theme among conspicy theories. That being said, several mainstream academics and journalists who have written on the subject of conspiracism have used the iconic image of the eye and pyramid on the cover of their books and magazines. So it makes sense that we do the same. The fact that a defunct U.S. agency abandonned their logo because New World Order conspiracy theorists made a big fuss about it is extremely relevant to an encyclopedic article on the New World Order conspiracism. I would even argue that it is the perfect image. --Loremaster (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia generally doesn't work the way Loremaster implies here. There aren't assigned duties, and you are welcome to Be Bold with anything you like. -Verdatum (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I know all that. However, Blueboar has an expertise on the subject and I know from experience that he will object to Masonic-themed images that he thinks are not appropriate. So I'm just trying to avoid a potential edit war before it happens. --Loremaster (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The appropriateness of the dollar image is largely dependent on how it is represented. An appropriate caption for this image would be presenting it as 'an example of propaganda from an NWO conspiracy theorist website'. It shouldn't be used as anything informative about the dollar bill, as that would be off-topic to this article, and a lot of the information is just plain wrong. If it is presented as an example of NWO conspiracy theorist propaganda, then I think there are potentially better examples out there. -Verdatum (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Verdatum. --Loremaster (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

1. FUI: This image comes from here: http://www.newworldorderwar.com/stop-ignoring-the-signs-of-the-new-world-order/.
2. Comment: If you're going to "protect" Freemasons from the offense of this image, then why don't you also "protect" my government which is being equally attacked you have posted now on the Content page of this article. I do not understand the inequality? Please explain the inequality?
3. In a moment I will edit the caption appropriately, as you have asked.
4. PS: I see no explicit reference to the Masons associated with this image here. It apparently is being read into it!

--Ludvikus (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who is familiar with conspiracy theories about the U.S. one dollar bill knows that many conspiracy theorists believe that it contains Masonic and/or Illuminati symbology. That being said, my comment had nothing to do with "protecting" Freemasonry. I'm simply pointing out that you may want to talk to User:Blueboar if you want to include an image that many conspiracy theorists (wrongly) associate with Freemansonry to avoid an unnecessary dispute. Regardless, I'm only opposed to this image because I think we can find better and I'm obviously not the only one who thinks that. --Loremaster (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I said it before, more than once: Effectively the most important rule at Wikipedia is conformity to the Consensus. I certainly want to keep doing that. But I do not think it is correct for us to be contacting someone to get their permission for anything. Any editor, by Wikipedia rules, may come up and bring up an objection whenever they wish. That's Wikipedia policy. So I do not see why I'm asked to contact another editor. At the same time, telling me to do so is now highly improper for you to ask me to do. And you will violate WP policy if you do it yourself. You just said that you wish the image removed, and now you wish that contact be made with a person whom you know might agree with you. That's not contacting a neutral party. That's contacting someone who will agree with you that the image should be removed. I'm therefore advising you that you should not contact that person, and neither should you have someone else do it for you. You have already done that once, haven't you (for obvious reasons I'm not mentioning his name in order not to create a Confrontation)? So please don't do it again. It violates Wikipedia rules. You know which rule I mean. In good faith, --Ludvikus (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read the Wikipedia:Consensus policy page since you don't seem to understand it or any of Wikipedia's policies for that matter. As for the rest of your rant about what I should and shouldn't do, I'll just ignore it since you don't know what you are talking about. --Loremaster (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

All I want to know from you is what the Consensus is on any change to the article regarding images. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The copyright (and legal, in the US) status of the image is unclear. Images of currency are not copyrighted, but may be illegal under counterfitting statutes. The commentary, however, is copyrighted unless the copyright is specifically released by the author.

In any case, the image should not be in the article, and certainly not on this talk page.

If copyright clarification becomes available, then the image should be fine. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ludvikus, there is no "consensus" regarding images on this article beyond the fact that we all agree that all images should have a caption that explains their relevance in an article about New World Order conspiracy theories from a rational skeptical perspective. Everything else is still up for debate and criticism. --Loremaster (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Thanks, both of you two above. No consensus means no change to images postings on the content phase.
2. However, on the second point, Loremaster you're totally unresponsive to the issue I raise and completely inaccurate about what the consensus is. My objection was, and remains, as I've stated it and I want to know exactly what the Consensus on that point is (see below):
3. It's insufficient to have a mere Caption beneath the image. The Body of the Article must sufficient discuss the implication of the image; the reader should not be made to draw psychological impressions merely by looking at the image. The Caption generally (1) identifies the image, (2) tells us where its from, where it came from.
4. Unless that's done, the image should not appear on the Content page in an extremely controversial Article as this; otherwise it appears that the Article promotes the implicit message of the image.

--Ludvikus (talk) 01:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I obviously disagree with you that we absolutely need to discuss the implication of the image. I think the caption I wrote is sufficient. --Loremaster (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• The Caption at the moment says this: "The defunct United States Information Awareness Office's original logo created controversy because the eye and pyramid has long been used as an ominous symbol in conspiracy theories about a New World Order." That assertion deserves to be discussed in the article before one is struck with the image of a legitimate defunct agency of the United States which carries the same "eye" and "pyramid" as the dollar bill. As things stand, the article is promoting the thesis of a NWO conspiracy instead of explaining it. Even if one clicks on the WP article about the IAO (I glanced at it quickly) one does not find this presentation of the "controversy" as described in this Caption. --Ludvikus (talk) 06:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Although I strongly disagree with you that the caption is promoting the thesis of a NWO conspiracy, I have improved the caption to make sure it is better understood. I will try to find a more precise footnote as soon as possible. --Loremaster (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

But all I ask you to do is discuss the suject in the article. People do not bother reading captions. You know the saying, "A picture is worth a thousand words." The effect is to "libel" administration. If the picture is misleading, but you want it include, you should have a clear accounting of its significance. An why put something from 2002 at the very top? People who don't bother to read will jump to conclusions about the organization. It's just like writing about rape and putting a picture of you at the top. Imagine that. Or how about an article, with a picture of you, and the heading of the article reading "How many times do you beat your wife?" Anyway, I can only try to express my objections. It's up to the Consensus to decide. Why not put the picture lower down in the article next to where you can develop a discussion about the logo. Also, I noticed that the article about the organization whose logo it is says nothing about the controversy you put in the caption. So why not develop that related article first? --Ludvikus (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that I don't take orders from you, nothing you say will change my mind. There is nothing misleading about the picture or the current caption nor is there anything wrong with its current location. I'm moving on so I suggest you do the same. --Loremaster (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Here is a web page of a notable conspiracy theorist making a big fuss about the IAO logo: Information Awareness Office (IAO): How's This for Paranoid?
2. Here is a report for the U.S. Congress which briefly discusses the controversy about the IAO logo: Data Mining: An Overview

--Loremaster (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for these references. I'll study them. I'm sorry you feel I'm "Ordering" you about. That's not my intent. I know there are other editors listening to us two. And I can assure you (and them) that I'll abide by what the majority wishes. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Now here's an exact quote we can use extracted from your #2. reference (Page 10):

"The second source of contention involved TIA’s original logo,

which depicted an “all-seeing” eye atop of a pyramid looking down over the globe,

accompanied by the Latin phrase scientia est potentia (knowledge is power).25

Although DARPA eventually removed the logo from its website, it left a lasting impression."

• I think we ought to use this exact quote from the reference you just provided. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• And Footnote #25 is this (Page 10):

25 The original logo can be found at http://www.thememoryhole.org/policestate/iaologo.htm.

• Hope that's helpful. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
• But what is this online entity which has this logo: Illuminati Conspiracy Archive?
• Author of article (with the logo) is this person: Terry Melanson.

I'm just gathering information to find an appropriate image as our Third WK editor has asked for. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• And hheeeeeaaaaaarrrrs Johny (Voila):

Illuminati Conspiracy Archive currently (October 2009) maintains logo of defunct USA federal agency, Information Awareness Office formed in 2002 [1]

• Brought to you by, --Ludvikus (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks but no thanks. 1) The previous IAO logo was fine. There was there no need to upload a second IAO to Wikipeedia. 2) The caption you have have written doesn't explain the controversy over the logo nor the connection between the logo and New World Order conspiracism which is crucial. So I'm reverting your edits. --Loremaster (talk) 14:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Are we two the only ones left? I Strongly oppose your Reversion: 1) The Reverted logo is nicer looking than the current one; 2) Your welcome to edit the logo Caption, however, explanations go on the Content page not on the Caption of an image (that seems like obvious common sense to me, but I haven't checked the governing WP rule. People who can't read, look at pictures. Readers read, and glance at pictures. That my point of view of course. You can take it or leave it. But I would be extremely shocked if someone were to inform me that no WP rule prohibits the writing of an Article as part of an Images caption. Maybe Wikipedia should be permitted to turn into a comic book - that's what this proposal right above suggests to me. When I was a child, not yet able to read I loved comic books. Now, it seems, some of my favorite books which I read only have a picture on the Cover; and you know the saying - you can't judge a book by its cover. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know how many times I have to tell you this but not only do I not care about your opinion but I will oppose all your ill-conceived edits of this article. --Loremaster (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• That's absolutely contradicted by your action. You are in fact working with me in practice extremely well. I agree to some of the changes to the image you have just made. So what you're saying now is extremely confusing to me. You must know that any experienced, patient, Wikipedian, who has the time to do that, can easily see that you've adopted some of the very suggestions I've requested that are to be made. But I'm going to be very patient and give you, or anyone else, a chance to improve the article before I make any drastic changes myself. In fact, I'll probably not even make any minuscule alterations to the article because I sincerely do not wish to irritate you any more than you already have. Please calm down. Remember that the image issue was not introduced exclusively by me. I don't want anyone distracted by the irritability that you feel I cause you. So you are more than welcome to post any comment on my Talk page, telling me what I can do in order not to cause you any more annoyance. Please, please, calm down. I tried to introduce humor into our conversation - but that obviously didn't work. Bye, --Ludvikus (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not going to deny that some of your minor proposed changes to the article were good. However, I've only acted on them because they were about issues with the article (such as so-called weasel words, and the caption and footnote for the IAO image) that I was already aware of and planning on eventually resolving. The problem is that you often frame these good proposals with the most convoluted logic. Furthermore, your major proposed changes to the article (such as revamping the article to focus on the militia movement and Christian fundamentalists, renaming and moving the article to [[New World Order (conspiracy theories)]], splitting the article in two, adding a antisemitism tag to the article, adding a WikiProject:Jewish History tag to the talk page, deleting the IAO image, adding the image of the US one-dollar bill with a conspiracy theorist's notes on it, etc) have all been soundly rejected. That being said, I'm not going to come down because I think you have been far more disruptive than productive. I just hope an administrator bans you before you do more damage to Wikipedia despite your good intentions... --Loremaster (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for your lead in which you acknowledge my contributions. That's much appreciated: "I'm not going to deny that some of your minor proposed changes to the article were good." However, what you say thereafter, whether or not the sweeping characterization & generalization is true, with all due respect, it's ALL your "fault." Let me remind you that you explicitly said to me that you wished me to "just go away." You made it clear to me that you were not interested in anything I had to say. And when I tried to discuss things with you on your talk page, you made it explicitly clear that you did not want to discuss anything with me there. And when I asked you to talk to me on my Talk page, you also effectively told me that my views were indications of ignorance, or some less pleasant word than that.

• My proposal now is that we stop all this bickering, Archive this page, and start a fresh page, in which we'll work together, make succinct proposals on improving this article further. If you wish, I'll first make suggestion on my Talk page so that this Talk page is more readable. Also, maybe we could work things out without needing to post things here. I really think it's best to archive this page because it spends too much time dealing with your views of my Wikipedia behavior. If you want to continue that, please do so on my Talk page - not here, where it's really inappropriate. Whenever a Wikipedia does something wrong, inconsistent with Wiki rules and policy, they should be specifically told exactly what that was. Assuming that I'm in fact "ignorant" of something, it's highly improper for you to say so here. In fact, it's irrelevant. You should simply tell such an individual exactly where, in your opinion, the transgression occurred. And that's in part what User talk pages are for. I'm willing to tolerate your informing me how "ignorant" I am - but please do that on your Talk page, or on my Talk page - BUT NOT HERE. So let's cleanup this page by Archiving it so it doesn't look like you're trying to provoke me into a WP:Edit war. I can assure you that I will not be provoked no matter how many insults you hurl at me. I also urge you to explain why you deliberately contacted an outside Editor, whose also an Administrator whom I believe you knew would side with your position. This is a violation of WP:Conflict of interest rule, as well as polling for someone whom you know shares your views (the name & link to the exact rule escapes me at the moment). Let me tell you that I'm not interested in "punishing." I only wish that you mend your ways of discourse with me on this Talk page. So lets cleanup this page ASAP. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• While information on a purely one-on-one personal level may move to user talkpages, do be careful to keep discussion about the article on this page so that everyone might contribute. Your concerns about Loremaster contacting other editors is a tricky issue, and is discussed at WP:CANVAS. Please understand that consensus is a good deal more complicated than a majority rule vote, and has more to do with making sense of the arguments for and against a given action. Unless an administrator is behaving in some official capacity, their opinion on an article should be viewed as having no more weight than that of any other editor. Also, while the discussion is cluttered with unhelpful insults, I'd still prefer to keep the discussion unarchived, at least keep archiving to a minimum, so that other users may more easily understand the current arguments and compromises involved. -Verdatum (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Clarification: Thanks a million for your Valuable input, User:Verdatum and I clarify my position as follows.

1. I think there are some personal un-resolved problems between myself & User:Loremaster regarding our effectiveness in communication in accordance with WP policy, and that discussion belongs on one each others Talk pages - not here. So I'm opening an invitation to anyone to discuss ONLY how the two of us can learn to work together as Wikipedians.
2. I don't think it's at all tricky. It's merely hard to prove. The person she invited participated in the same sort of Descriptiveness which makes me extremely doubtful that his role was nothing but that of someone who was canvased precisely because he would support the view of the canvasser no matter what.
3. Regarding Consensus, welcome to to the Real world. Haven't you heard of what I like to call "Wiki criminality"? In practice, at the moment, the only safe way to go - is NOT against the Majority. Doing so immediately labels one as a "Disruptor."
4. In fact, Administrators (maybe not all) use their special privileges to push their own POV, and they Ban or Restrict Users who oppose them.
5. Regarding Archiving - you may find this hard to believe - but I'm actually trying to prevent the user (whom I shall not name) from being Restricted, or worse, Blocked, or Banned. Archiving this Talk page will only do me good. It's a record of how extremely well & handled Provocations & Disruptions. But I'm more interested Editing this article that in any of that at the moment.

Hope this helps our article on unsavory subject matter.--Ludvikus (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Militia movement according to the ADL

FUI:

• "Militia movement

• Origins: Mid-to-late 1993
• Prominent leaders:

• John Trochmann (Montana),
• Ron Gaydosh (Michigan),
• Randy Miller (Texas),
• Charlie Puckett (Kentucky),
• Mark Koernke (Michigan),
• Carl Worden (Oregon),
• Gib Ingwer (Ohio)

• Prominent groups:

• Kentucky State Militia,
• Ohio Unorganized Militia Assistance and Advisory Committee,
• Southeastern Ohio Defense Force,
• Michigan Militia (two factions using the same name),
• Southern Indiana Regional Militia,
• Southern California High Desert Militia-and many others

• Outreach: Gun shows, shortwave radio, newsletters, the Internet
• Ideology: Anti-government and conspiracy-oriented in nature; prominent focus on firearms
• Prominent militia arrests: Multiple members of the following groups have been arrested and convicted, usually on weapons, explosives, or conspiracy charges:

• Oklahoma Constitutional Militia, Georgia Republic Militia, Arizona Viper Militia, Washington State Militia, West Virginia Mountaineer Militia, Twin Cities Free Militia, North American Militia, San Joaquin County Militia.

The source for the above is the Anti Defamation League [20] on the Web. --Ludvikus (talk) 08:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Debate

• This article is not about the militia movement. It's about New World Conspiracism. If people want details about the militia movement, they can and should simply go the article on that subject: Militia movement. User:Loremaster Forgot to sign???

• I agree. However, it's my understanding that it was the Militia movement which first developed the conspiracy theory/theories associated with the expression New World Order. So I agree that we should have {{Main|Militia movement}} in this article. But it is this movement which should be immediately below the lede. But the article in its current state does not give sufficient weight to this "movement." It's a bit like writing about Nazi Germany and making very few remarks about Adolf Hitler. I hope you get by point by this dramatic example. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

As usual, your ignorance leads to your misunderstanding. Conspiracy theories explicitly about the New World Order were developed in the 1940s. It was only after President Bush used the term in a 1990 speech to Congress that some conspiracy theorists began organizing a new milita movement in order to resist the New World Order. Furthermore, not all militias in the militia movement embrace New World Order conspiracism. Therefore, your analogy with Nazi Germany and Adolf Hitler is a very bad one. That being said, instead of obessively trying to revamp this article with ill-conceived ideas, why don't you focus on what this article really needs, which is standardizing all the footnotes according to Wikipedia:Citing sources guidelines. --Loremaster (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Nowhere do I claim to know much about about this subject. What I'm an expert at is analyzing any article I'm interested in by examining its References & Sources. Now I gave you my source as the ADL - not Yours truly. But you're giving me the source as you yourself. I confess that I found the lead so unbearable to read, that I could not possibly force myself to do more that scan the Section headings. So if you would be so kind as to tell me where your "1940" claim is developed in the article, I'd appreciate it very much. But the body of this article is like kryptonite to Superman for me, myself, and I (so the Consensus at the moment is 3 to 2 in my favor, right?) - hope you like these analogies & metaphors better. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL Are you joking me? The notion that you are an expert at analyzing any article must be the funniest thing I have ever heard! But seriously, I don't understand why you find the lead so unbereable when I'm simply paraphrasing (and in some cases almost copy-and-pasting) Barkun's statements on the subject of New World Order conspiracism. Although I agree that it needs to more developed, my "1940 claim" can be found in the second and third paragraph of the History of the term section of the article. My source, among many others, is Chip Berlet's essay How Apocalyptic and Millennialist Themes Influence Right Wing Scapegoating and Conspiracism (Have you read it in its entirety yet?). That being said, I don't know what consensus you imagine there is in your favor. The only people who are critical of this article (besides you) are for reasons that are the exact opposite of yours: They think the article is not-neutral because they think it should promote the notion that there is really is a New World Order conspiracy! The fact that you fail to understand this is proof that you have the poorest analytical skills of any Wikipedia user I have ever encountered on this talk page! --Loremaster (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks so much for your "LOL" , which I'll deliberately misinterpret as lots of love. I'll skip over your discussion of me because of I think therefore I am, not to be confused with our Lord, I am that I am. But I'll tell you this about my personal self - I've purchase Michael Barkun's book from Amazon.com and look forward to reading it very closely. The price was a bargain - I think only about $5.00 + shipping (used), if I'm not mistaken. There were only 2 copies available, and I ordered 1 - so get it while you can, Wikipedians. Also, I've bought precisely because I realized that it was the only substantial source for this article. So I'll be able to check on the accuracy of your "cut & paste" performance, and the consequent conformity to his notion of Conspiracism. Regarding the essay by Chip Berlet, How Apocalyptic and Millennialist Themes Influence Right Wing Scapegoating and Conspiracism - no I haven't read it - and I'll look to see if I can get a copy of it somewhere. Thanks for this reference. I do appreciate it very much. By consensus - I mean that lately there are only two voices her: (1) you, and (2) me. I am perfectly aware of you concern regarding subscribers to the idea the "New World Order conspiracy/conspiracies." I'm a substantial contributor to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. And there believers in this Warrant for Genocide are not fully aware that at the basis of this plagiarism, literary forgery, and hoax, lies, ironically, literally a Non-Existent Manuscript. Can you imagine a tract, or text at whose basis is something which does not exist? So based on my experience at study how one is to write about the most notorious conspiracy theory in human history, I think I can give a little constructive advice about this relatively harmless new comer in comparison, don't you think? But I will not do so at the moment, because no one yet is listening - but they will. I've got faith in that. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
• PS: Hmmmmm. Dancing with Devils is the Lead title of this essay by Chip Berlet you cite [21]. I'm still not sure how scholarly a reference this source of yours is. The organization is a non-profit run by six full time staff. Hold-on. I'm only asking. I certainly will read it, now that I've Downloaded it off the Web. To be honest, I'd rather be Dancing with Wolves. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Can you please STOP excessively using internal links! They should be used simply to emphasize a word. That's what bold text is for. They should only be used on words you think people may not understand and/or may benefit reading up on by going to their existing Wikipedia articles. There is obviously no need to internal-link words like "you" or "love". That being said, I suggest you read the Wikipedia:Reliable sources page to understand why Chip Berlet's essay qualifies as a reliable source. By the way, the complete essay is available online so there is no need to look for a paper copy of it somewhere. --Loremaster (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• My purpose was simply to highlight the fact that an item does not exist as an article in Wikipedia. You've deleted these links already so the issue is academic. However, when an item is Red instead of Black it instantly tells one that there's no article at Wikipedia by that name. It is a clue (not a fact) that an item is perhaps not WP:Notable. But this Talk page is so crowded, that it's now questionable if it's readable. So I will not bother Reverting your changes even once. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• PS: I've changed my mind in part. I'm going to restore only two (2) links to demonstrate the possible non-notability of the extremely important reference you gave as the foundation of this Wikipedia article: Dancing with Devils: How Apocalyptic and Millennialist Themes Influence Right Wing Scapegoating and Conspiracism by Chip Berlet. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Could you please restate your purpose? I honestly don't get it. 134.106.41.25 (talk) 10:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• I don't get it either - except for the fact that this Wiki space is managed by Loremaster - so it wouldn't be proper for me to add anymore bits of text to this overcrowded and therefore unreadable space. I can only make a helpful suggestion that this page be Protected & Archived for future reference. And let's start a New and Fresh page. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not a good sign that you don't understand your own purposes either. Not terribly surprising, though. 134.106.41.25 (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• I appreciate very much you're use of the plural: "purposes,", rather than "purpose." So at least I will now show you that I understand my own purpose 100%. My point here is simply to say that the conspiracy theory, known by the name, New World Order, began, according to the ADL, with the Militia movement. Yet the article does not show that. I want a simple lead to this article, reflecting that fact (if it's confirmed by all other scholarly sources, published by journals with peer review if available). Immediately after that there should be an appropriate paragraph reciting, briefly, the original role that said movement played in creating the phenomena also known here at least by the acronym, NWO. Hope this helps in answering your query. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• In addition, the article is editorially flawed because it begins, misleadingly, by telling the story of the Information Awareness Office (2002) in the caption of the image so that the article begins with Footnote [4].

The "Militia movement began in the early 1990's. So this Caption can easily mislead a reader as to when said conspiracy began. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

In addition, this article now appears more and more to look like an analysis of the structure of the NWO phenomena, rather than its relatively simpler history. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• 1. The ADL article does not say that the Militia movement started the NWO conspiracy theory. It states that the movement took up several traditional conspiracy theories and created new ones. The combination of these then was the idea of a shadow government (a not exactly new or idiosyncratic concept), for which they used the term "New World Order". The article in ambiguous here as to whether this derives from traditional or new elements. But it really does not state: NWO began with the militia movement. Furthermore, the history section reflects all this and it gives sources. Did you read that far?
• 2. The article does not start with telling the story of the IAO. Weren't you even involved in the rewriting of the caption? Has anyone else voiced objections to the image?
• 3. "The "Militia movement began in the early 1990's. So this Caption can easily mislead a reader as to when said conspiracy began." Which caption? 78.48.15.161 (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• You raise important points, 78.48.15.161. Thanks a million for your participation. Please give me a moment. I'm preparing a meal for my Mama (but of course anyone is free to answer you in the meantime!) ... . --Ludvikus (talk) 16:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• My cooking has ended. But I'm time-pressed on other errands. So I think I can make a brief response to this query which would benefit all editors actively concerned or not:

Cryptocracy

The above word is still a WP:Neologism [22]. It isn't yet in Miriam Webster's. So lets not use it in the very opening. It appears to have been coined in the 1990's. See Cryptocracy. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing a few weeks ago. So I have now deleted it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That's great - I see a light at the end of the tunnel! --Ludvikus (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, minor sensible changes you have proposed will be implemented. Major convoluted changes you propose will be soundly rejected. --Loremaster (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I see now I hit a dead end. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Whatever... --Loremaster (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Should the article focus more on the militia movement?

1. Question 1: Isn't or shouldn't New world order be the WP:Primary topic? Did the expression, "New world order come into being after WW1 with USA President Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points?
2. Question 2: Is it the case, or not, that the association of the expression, for which we have an ambiguous acronym, "NWO," come about the time of the rise of the Militia movement (which came into being about the early 1990's)?
3. Question 3: Isn't it clear from that that this should be the focus, or skeleton of our article?

Now off to other errands. Thanks you all for letting me participate in this debate. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

1. The term "new world order" has two different yet related meanings. One in international relations and one in conspiracy theory. The latter is often a misintepreation of the use of the former. There is and should be two seperate articles for the two meanings. That being said, it is unknown exactly when and how the term "new world order" came into being. However, I'm looking into that.
2. No. As Chip Berlet explains (in the quote provided in the History of term section of the article), right-wing conspiracy theorists have been using the term "new world order" to represent a bureaucratic collectivist one-world government for decades BEFORE the militia movement of the 1990s became galvanized by Bush's use of the term.
3. No. See my explanation above.

--Loremaster (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The history section needs serious untangling. It is reasonable to presume that the term first gained notable use by politicians in support of some level of world government, and then forked into the conspiracy theorist connotation. And because of this, it is appropriate to discuss the early usage in that world governing body sense for the soul purpose of giving background on the history. It is not appropriate to focus on the world government usage (If that is what Ludvikus means to suggest above), as that is not the conspiracy theory.

It'd be lovely to find a paper that asserts the first recorded usage of the phrase. We can only discuss "first recorded usage" through secondary sources, just naming the earliest primary source any of us can find as the earliest would naturally be original research. (Also, we aren't able to say that the information is 'unknown', since all we really know is that none of us know it.)

The history section starts by naming characters using the term over the course of a century, and then carries this topic into the second paragraph discussing it's effect on post WWII society. This is confusing, as obviously, nothing George Bush said could have had any effect on the 1940s.

I don't really see a need for this overview summary style taken in the first paragraph of the history section. It should instead be a chronological narrative the entire way through.

Admittedly, some of that confusion may have come from some of my reorganization of this article, ages ago; I can't recall. Still, a history of the term is a valuable part of the article, and it should be rendered comprehensible. -Verdatum (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ludvikus, you seem to be under the misconception that just because the image is at the top of the page, or located first in the wiki markup, that it is the "beginning" of the article. This isn't true. The image and caption are a side-bar to the article; an aside. whether the first citation attributes to the caption, or the lead paragraph is inconsequential. The footnote numbering is merely a mechanism to match facts and citations together. They could just as easily be random Chinese characters instead of numbers, so long as they match up properly.

Regardless of what you may think, Loremaster is in no way the "manager" of this article. For the most part, he doesn't seem to intend to imply this either. He may be the author of much of the content, but anyone is still encouraged to make any edits they see fit, so long as those edits improve the article.

I continue to believe that the IAO image does not belong at the beginning of the article. I did look through image policies/guidelines, and found nothing appropriate; still, I believe it to be confusing to readers, largely because the relationship to the article topic, despite being backed by a source, is still fairly weak. I would have already moved it to a lower position in the article, but since the other sections don't discuss the IAO, I didn't see any particularly good place to put it. -Verdatum (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm extremely pleased this instant. I agree with 98.6% (metaphor: body temperature) percent with what you've just said - except the part about my position. It really agrees with you much more than you imagine. However, I do not wish to clutter this page more than it is. Since we know mostly agree, I'll wait to see if what we agree about is executed. We can always raise another question down the road. Let me say that your recommendation doesn't seem easy to carry out. And I certainly do not wish to touch substantially the Content of the Article page until there's more good will among us all. Again, since I came on board, I know of NO editor who has worked harder to improve this Article than Loremaster has. It's unfortunate that much energy was lost between us. I'm only interested in going forward and finding a method of working with him efficiently. So I'll try to lay back a bit more, hoping that this will cool things down some more. I still think it would be best to Archive more of this Talk page simply because it's too cluttered. Also, if you remember, I tried to begin a WP:WikiProject page. But two editors, working together, had it deleted. I'm not at all invested personally in having it revived. But I think it's a good resource to produce a draft of the new version you just implied is in order. So -I'm looking forward to what other editors have to say. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree with Verdatum. I will work on improving the History of the term section. However, I will strongly oppose the creation of a WikiProject since it isn't necessary. --Loremaster (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

As you wish. I want to work with you. Just drop a message on my Talk page if there's anything you disagree with. I shall do my best to accommodate you. Let's do our best to keep this page impersonal. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: It's not nice deleting the name of the contributor, User:Loremaster. Assuming WP:Good faith, I assume that was an inadvertent error. Please restore the name/signature of the editor cut out at the very top. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. Moving on. --Loremaster (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Look for this above: "--18:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)." When you did your Cutting, you apparently cut out the signature. Please restore it. Thanks. It's important for the work here to be clearly document, since you value some of it as very low, and one might wish to appeal to a higher or simply better authority. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

If I did that, it was a mistake. If you care about your signature so much, restore it yourself. I have better things to do. --Loremaster (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

IAO seal

• The issue of the image is relatively minor compared to the over all structure. But its easiest to express my concern with it. It is this: it directs one's focus, at least psychologically speaking to a political conflict regarding the (second) Bush administration's reaction to Nine eleven. Subsequently, Democrats were critical of him not only because of his alleged unfounded attack on Iraq which we subsequently learned was not supported by the intelligence establishment, but also because of his establishment of was of apprehending terrorists on committing more suicide bombings. Those concerned with our nation's traditional liberties under our Bill of Rights were clearly disturbed by the extent to which the country was being protected. The agency that was created in 2002 - the Information Awareness Office - was found to have too broad powers inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States of America. The issue of the agency's seal is a relatively minor one. The agency was not shot down because of its seal. It would be extremely interesting to research how the seal was in fact produced - who designed it, for example. That could easily be done under the Freedom of Information Act. It was really stupid to have created that seal. Although it's obvious that the image of the seal comes from our (USA) dollar, the dollar bill had long been attacked for its Masonic imagery. Anti-Masons long ago used the dollar for their conspiracy theory. So it was obviously extremely poor judgment to use that dollar image for an espionage agency of the United State: it should have been anticipated that this would draw conspiracy-minded individuals like a magnet draws iron. So putting that image in our article, without any explanation in the body, is really doing the same stupid thing which the seal designer had done, and the agency accepted. Having that seal to the right is really a provocative act. It misleads the reader into suspecting that something sinister had truly been done - whereas the fact is that President Bush II over-reacted to the disaster which occurred on his watch as Head of State. I do not understand why I'm having such a hard time of explaining this: it's propaganda for those who wish to use the fiasco of this agency as proof, or evidence, of malevolent activity those at the top of our government. But that relatively minor issue compared to the problems of the substantive portions of our article which I hope to be able to get into later. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

1. No one suggested that the agency was shot down because of it's seal.
2. I don't know how many times I have to explain this to you but current caption under the image of the IAO seal does not mislead readers into suspecting that there was something sinister about the IAO. On the contrary, it educates readers on how conspiracy theorists misintepret the eye and pyramid.

--Loremaster (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

1. I didn't suggest that either.
2. Your Original research: to "educate[s] readers on how conspiracy theorists misintepret the eye and pyramid" does not belong here. It is not your task "to educate readers." Your task is to inform readers as to what the NWO conspiracy is. And now you've made it clear that the seal and agency have nothing to do with the NWO conspiracy. So you should delete the image. You might as well put up an image of George Washington, he was also a Freemason and our good first president. Therefore, you could similarly argue, there can be nothing wrong with Masonic imagery. Accordingly, the image, together with your Orignal research placed on the Caption, must go anywhere but on the Content page of this article. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
3. I've just confirmed it - the article says NOTHING about the agency or its seal - therefore neither have anything to do with the conspiracy. Thefore you must delete the image as irrelevant or, in the alternative supply text in the body of the Article explaining what relation these bear to the NWO CT. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ludvikus, this is exactly why I hate having a discussion with you even when I am willing to work with you in good faith.

1. In your rant about the IAO image, you said: The issue of the agency's seal is a relatively minor one. The agency was not shot down because of its seal.. No one has argued that the agency was shot down because of it's seal but the issue of the agency's seal is not minor since it contributed to the paranoia of conspiracy theorists.
2. I was using the word "educate" as a synomy for "inform". So calm down and relax.
3. Although I concede that my caption may be an example of synthesis, the fact that a U.S. agency abandonned their logo in part because New World Order conspiracy theorists made a big fuss about it is extremely relevant to an encyclopedic article on the New World Order conspiracism. I would even argue that it is the perfect image. Furthermore, several mainstream academics and journalists who have written on the subject of conspiracism have used the iconic image of the eye and pyramid on the cover of their books and magazines. So it makes sense that we do the same.
4. What article are you refering when you say that it says nothing about the agency or its seal?

--Loremaster (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I realize it is inflammatory to link to the following, but, Loremaster, Don't be a dick. I really don't want to take petty "I'm telling!" type administrative actions against you. If you just left out the user bashing, your comments would be perfectly valid.

I made an attempt at reformulating the caption (diff), but since I don't have access to the cited references (boo webfilters!), feel free to revert if the statement is not supported by the given citations.

I'm likewise curious as to which article Ludvicus refers. Any articles (particularly offline ones) where the critical statement is difficult to identify, I find it is useful to use the "quote=" attribute of the citation template. (I did just this with the data-mining article yesterday). -Verdatum (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Verdatum, although I have great respect for you as a Wikipedia contributor and I value your wise opinions, on the issue of how I choose to interact with Ludvikus, I frankly don't care what you think. If you want to report me please do so otherwise stop lecturing me. --Loremaster (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much Verdatum. Let me say that I particularly care what YOU think. So don't allow yourself to be provoked into expressing your most valued observations. Because I want to know what you think. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Verdatum, if you read Ludvikus' own comments in this section of the talk page you will discover that I am not the only person who thinks he is a problem despite his civility. --Loremaster (talk) 03:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Since we go by consensus here, please name that one other person for whom you went shopping precisely because you knew that person would support your view. That's a clear violation of Wikipedia policy and that's why you are not naming him - because it might possibly cause you to be Blocked, and then the rest of us could write a truly good article - without these constant, constant, Disruptions only by you. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL. --Loremaster (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The New World Order (Robertson)

Question: Would expansion of the above WP Article be construed as WP:Forking if the content of that article would substantially resemble this one? --Ludvikus (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

That would not be considered a POV fork, as the article scope of each is clear and separate. If you inject a non-neutral POV into those articles, that it is up to editors to work it out there, as they see fit.

(And please, I emplore everyone to make good use of the preview button in your edits. Weigh your comment carefully before you hit submit. Multiple quick edits in succession cause edit conflicts. I've had to merge my reply thrice now because of such conflicts.) -Verdatum (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Verdatum. I understand you. But from my experience (and you may know why) it's precisely because I want to avoid a POV issue from coming up. You are correct, I think, the scope Robertson's book is narrower. However, it covers most of the same ground as this article. So it might appear repetitious. I would like some support that I will be jumped because of that. Also, I'd like to hear from other editors too, particularly the one who deleted Robertson's book cover image from here. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It was discussed on your talk page, but your answers still don't make sence to me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well than, since you bring the discussion from my Talk page to this Talk page, and your an Administrator at Wikipedia, I'll do my best to oblige you. The scope of Historical revisionism is broad. Not only that, but after some scrutiny, I notice that it only include Gabriel Kolko among the subjects and authorities that interested me. So I concluded that there was a subject matter, substantial narrower in scope and decide to start {{stub}} to write about it. The title I give it was Historical revisionists (American). This was a Good faith attempt to write about a topic that was not covered in the large scope article. Eventually there was some bickering with one editor who believe that the stub was inappropriate because of the existence of the broader scoped article. But he decide to add material to it which I did not approve of because it was the subject of the larger scoped article. Nevertheless, I did not revert. The he contacted an administrator, who also worked substantially on the larger scoped article. He also new me from before. What did he do? He put Restrictions on me with respect to nine (9) articles related to the broad scoped article. He also took it upon himself to place me on probation until May 2010. So I'm sure he's watching now. Now, by coincidence, I find myself in a similar situation. I find the this Robertson article to be a narrower scoped article. But it's clearly related to this article. So it's possible that you, being an administrator might conclude that I'm doing it again and thereby Block me from Wikipedia. So I want to avoid that. It may turn out that Pat Robertson's book is the real source of all this stuff here. And the consensus, since you, Arthur Rubin, were also explicitly invited to this article to watch me, I have to be extremely careful in my editing, because the editor who made the HR restrictions is also, shall say, "concerned? So I want to know that I'm free write about Robertson's book. In other words, I'm giving you all an opportunity to say no because it would be considered a Fork. Hope that answers you question in a way that you understand. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Your own testimony is proof that I'm not only one who thinks you are problem. --Loremaster (talk) 03:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• User:Loremaster. Stop it already! --Ludvikus (talk) 10:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• User:Arthur Rubin. You said here: [23] that "a 2-1 majority majority does not necessarily indicate Consensus." Could you please explain that? I wouldn't want to be Blocked from Wikipedia simply because I failed to follow Consensus. Also, since your colleague immediately above invited you here, and you are Administrator, who apparently supports your colleague's position regarding my person, does that mean that I can ignore what you two write here the way I'm ignored by the both of you? I find the collusion between the both of you regarding the Personal Attacks on me extremely Disruptive. Please don't think that I'm violating my promise not to "Confront" another editor. I'm simply pleading with the both of you: STOP. And I say to each of you individually: "Don't be a dick". Again, why did Loremaster invite you here? It cannot possibly be in Good faith since you are an administrator and are permitting this constant personal attacks. Now please, the both of you, STOP, and lets Cleanup this page of all personal matter unrelated to the purpose of this article. My promise not to Confront did not mean I would waive my privilege to object to constant harassment by the both of you. All I want is that you both STOP, and leave you personal analysis of my value as a Wikipedian from the Talk pages. If you still have a need to do that, you are more than welcome to come to my own Talk page and iron out our differences. This, however, is not the Space to do that. And I will not be provoked into saying something which would cause you two to have be Blocked. It is clear to me that the both of you are not acting in Good faith. I'm not required by WP to assume that which does not exist. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone explain the meaning of WP:CONSENSUS to Ludvikus? I've tried. I've pointed out several times that a majority doesn't necessarily indicate consensus, but that sometimes a minority does.

IMHO, most of your suggestions are unhelpful. That hasn't (usually) stopped me from explaining why, but you have insisted on adding your comments until a majority is opposed to you.

WP:BRD suggests you should not make changes again after they are reverted, unless there is consensus in favor of the suggestion. Even one editor in opposition to your sole support suggests an absence of consensus.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I'm shocked to hear you say that "IMHO, most of your suggestions are unhelpful". I'm beginning to believe now in your Good faith. I'm certainty going to read that item you suggest. But in the meantime, could you please be specific as to what exactly you object regarding what I've done which you disapprove? If you do that, I'll be able to STOP. But your general reference to my misapplication of the Consensus, non-majority rule is a complete mystery. So if you could give me a Diff I could figure out what it is that you're complaining of. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Listen, User:Arthur Rubin, I'm not stupid. I've looked at what you've directed me to read. But it's of no help. I cannot figure out exactly what you think I've done that you do not like. I do wish to believe in your good faith, but you're making it impossible. I assure you that I've been extremely careful in my editing. Now I believe that you will not be able to produce a Single DIFF which would show the slightest transgression of a WP rule. So lets abandon this stuff here - delete your complaints that have no basis. Or you are invited to discuss any personal matter on my Talk page - not here. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Mergeinto - New World Order (Pat Robertson)

Question: What objection is there, if any, if I were to Tag the pages for {{Merge}} as indicated above (I now believe that the subject matter of both is the same)? --Ludvikus (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose any proposal to merge the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article into another article. --Loremaster (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge is not appropriate, as this article relates to anyone's use of the phrase to describe a conspiracy, The New World Order (Robertson) is an article about a specific book. -Verdatum (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Verdatum. (At last report, Ludvikus seemed willing to act unless he saw a consensus against him, which he defined as a majority. Although I do agree with the previous editor, I wouldn't have commented if his perceptions were not in error.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. The editors above are clear. You are not. Please direct yourself to the issue. I do not know why you talk to me here about consenses, when that was discussed about two weeks ago on my Talk page. We all now have a good working relationship. I want that too with you. But please the simple question directly so I can know what you mean, since I'm the one asking the question. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Expanding related articles

Regarding the global view, it has been explained above that our article is based on the scholarly work of Michael Barkun. But he is not a historian. He is a political scientist. The long online article authored by him, which I've began reading, already demonstrates that he's writing on conspiracism, a term which may or may not be a neologism (because it has not yet entered our dictionary). Nevertheless, we now this, that he means by it "conspiracy theory," not that of a police detective investing the working of the Mafia, but that of someone who subscribes to a conspiracy in spite of all the inadequate evidence available which would justify a logical inference. In the article by whom to which I was directed by the editor herein, however, Barkun does not focus on a specific phenomena which he explicitly labels "New World Order" But I really did not read more that the beginning of his first series. That's partly due to the fact that I have little interest, or patience, for studying the sociology, or politics, of such phenomena. My interests lie in its history. I want to know who said or wrote what and when. Unfortunately, so fare I have not found that in the opening of that article of his in the series. What I find most interesting is the work of Robert Singerman, who is responsible for the Singerman list. This work gives one a great initial source to do precisely that. If or when I find that this article turns into some sort of analysis (supported by referenced scholarship of course) I will not want to participate here. However, if this is truly a mostly historical analysis of the NWO Conspiracy, I might want to stay on board. However, I still am in the clouds in comprehending whether this article is about a singular phenomena (as the name implies), or whether this is meant to be about some sort of collective. In either case, I still find myself inside a long tunnel without any light at the end. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• One way out, is if this community permits me to expend subordinate articles; for example, expanding the one on Michael Barkun; or developing the "stub" on Pat Robertson's book on the New World Order. I ask permission, so to speak, because my writing may turn into what may appear to be a POV Fork. That is not permitted by Wikipedia. So I ask, what if the subordinate articles are inconsistent with this article, will some editor complain of point-of-view forking? --Ludvikus (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• See this:

    Radner, Ephraim.
    New world order, old world anti-Semitism.
    (Pat Robertson of the Christian Coalition)
    (includes related articles on the Illuminati)(Cover Story).
    The Christian Century
    112.n26 (Sept 13, 1995): 844(6).
    InfoTrac OneFile. Thomson Gale.

• And our Wikipedia says this (at The New World Order (Robertson)):

    "In a review of this book, Ephraim Radner writes that
    "Lind and Heilbrun show how Robertson took over—in some cases word for word—well-worn theories of a Jewish conspiracy.
    "In particular, Robertson relied on the work of Nesta Webster and Eustace Mullins.

• This online item is available here: [24]. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• The full names of the Book reviewers are: Michael Land and Jacob Heilbrun. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to ask anyone's permission to expand related articles. However, after having seen some of your editing of a few articles, I would be extremely concerned that you may end damaging rather than improving these articles as you try to expand them. So don't be surprised if people (including me) revert some of your edits... --Loremaster (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Protocols of the Elders of Zion

It's now twice that one editor deleted the issue of dates for the above item. The article gives the date 1903. That's merely the date of it's publication in Russia in Russian. But the crucial dates are 1919 and 1920 that's when this item arrived in Great Britain and the United States and was translated into English. So the item did not effectively exit until the latter dates and could not have played any role in NWO. Please explain why you deleted this item twice - and without any discussion? --Ludvikus (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

So, we're not talking about anything before 1950 in that section; what difference does it make whether it was published in 1903 or 1920? In any case, I added a clause mentioning the date. Perhaps both date clauses should be removed, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Appreciate your flexibility. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

OR tag

In seems that the section "conspiracy theories" does not demonstrate that the term "New World Order" was used in the respective contexts. The article must to strictly limit itself to the cases when the term "New World Order" is used.

Also keep in mind if some critic calls some conspiracy theory "New World Order" it does not necessarily mean that this theory must be expounded here in detail. For example, the article Nazism does not have a section Feminazi or similar extensions. I repeat, the usage of term NWO must be heavily used in the context of a theory in order to be detailed here. Other cases ofthe usage of the phrase must be properly attributed to the authors, without unnecessary detail, most probably already present in their particular cases.

The rest of the conspiracy theories about world domination should go into the page with a generic title, World domination. - Altenmann >t 22:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

1. I disagree with your assertion that the article does not demonstrate that the term "New World Order" was used in the respective contexts. However, I agree with you that it could do a better job of demonstrating this fact.
2. The articles focuses on the most popular conspiracy theories about the New World Order. Obscure ones have not been included. Attempts by some contributors to add fringe conspiracy theories were met with resistance.
3. World domination and conspiracy theories about world domination are not the same thing.

--Loremaster (talk) 00:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

advent & Advent

Online Merriam-Websters has this definition for the above:

Main Entry: Ad·vent

Pronunciation: \ˈad-ˌvent, chiefly British -vənt\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin adventus, from Latin, arrival, from advenire

Date: 12th century

1 : the period beginning four Sundays before Christmas and observed by some Christians as a season of prayer and fasting

2 a : the coming of Christ at the Incarnation b : second coming

3 not capitalized : a coming into being or use <the advent of spring> <the advent of pasteurization> <the advent of personal computers>

Must we have that word, "advent," related to "Advent," in the first sentence, "for Christ's sake" (pun intended? And this word, doing so much work, for the average reader on a controversial subject? --Ludvikus (talk) 11:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The word is perfect in light of its multiple meanings. --Loremaster (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I suspect it's unintentional, but you're insulting all Christians by confusing Christ and Antichrist, the Second coming with End Time. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

God... I'm really getting tired of your convoluted assertions. Find me one rational Christian who is insulted by the use of the term "advent" in the lead. Until then, get lost. --Loremaster (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Gotta side with Loremaster on this one. Are you honestly suggesting we can't use any words that have as a possible definition something that might offend some hypothetical entity? Words can have different meanings, as reasonable readers, we can use context clues to determine which meaning applies. Not that it really applies to this situation, but There is no policy against offensive content anyway; Wikipedia is Not Censored. -Verdatum (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Moving on. --Loremaster (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "offending," but confusing, misinforming, mislead, etc., with unnecessary obscure words in an area the ordinary, perhaps minimally educated readers might go. This not an article where particle physics specialist might go. Why not make the vocabulary as simplistic as its subject matter is? So I got to side with Ludvikus on this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludvikus (talk • contribs) 02:28, 16 October 2009

Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Although the anonymous contributor's argument is sensible (compared to the non-sense that Ludvikus wrote), I disagree with him. According to official guidelines, a good Wikipedia article must be well-written in the sense that its prose are engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard. The reason why "simplistic" vocabulary should be avoided is because it contributes to the "dumbing down" or over-simplicifaction of the subject. That being said, until Ludvikus made a big fuss about it, the word "advent" had been in the lead for months without anyone ever complaining that it is confusing, misinforming, misleading or obscure. This fact suggests to me that most minimally educuated readers are familiar with the word and/or have no problem understanding what it obviously means: a coming into being or use. Therefore, I strongly support keeping this word and will revert any attempt to delete or replace it. --Loremaster (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Emergence is by far the better word. Or even Rising, as with the Sun, or even the Moon "(The Rising of the Moon). Don't forget - among the blind the one-eyed man is king. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ludvikus, you are actually right that the word "emergence" (which I've always loved) is a better word than "advent" so I have edited the article accordingly. --Loremaster (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I must say I'm confused by the above comment (starting with "It's not a matter of"). Unless I'm reading it wrong, according to the page history, it appears that Ludvikus is first siding with himself, and then is thanking himself for his own unsigned comment. Such an act is both frowned upon, and completely unnecessary. Good arguments are much more important than votes in favor of one side or another. -Verdatum (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Plot

What's your beef with Plots? Every Conspiracy has a Plot. It's so as well with Conspiracy theories. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

What you fail to understand is that the term "new world order" has several meanings. In international relations theory it means one thing while in conspiracu theory it means something else. It is therefore misleading to simply say "new world order" is a conspiracy theory in the first sentence of the lead. --Loremaster (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

POV

I tagged the history section for POV because it quite obviously contains a great deal of very loaded, biased language attacking those on the far-right who believe in the New World Order conspiracy theories. Those ideas may seem outlandish or loony to most of us but Wikipedia is not a place where articles are meant to pass judgment upon people for their beliefs. Stating for a fact that the influence "right-wing populism" on public policy will have "devastating" effects or that Fox News mainstreams the conspiratorist rhetoric of the "lunatic fringe" is clearly not in keeping with the idea of neutrality. These are the statements of a very liberal editor trying to editorialize by ridiculing the harshest critics of the policies which he or she supports. Whether or not such criticism is justified is not the point—this article is supposed to be informative, not persuasive. I will change some of the language to give the article a less biased tone, but I think the article needs more work than any one person can perform.--Antodav2007 (talk) 15:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

That's great! Welcome aboard. And good luck. However - I still don't know what this article is about. Is it about a singular conspiracy called NWO? So were do I go to find the Primary sources? Who are the people who believe in it. When did it start? Did it start in the 1990's? The article is overloaded with information. But who are the co-conspirators? Is Pat Robertson one? --Ludvikus (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is about a term invoked within the realm of conspiracy theory. No, it isn't a singular conspiracy, it's a term. For primary sources, you can visit your local library. In the least, people who write as though it's a sincere threat probably believe in it. The usage of the term goes back at least to H. G. Wells in 1940. No, it didn't start in the 1990s. There are no specific conspirators, because there is no singular specific conspiracy theory. I've never seen anyone give any indication that Pat Robertson is a conspirator; He wrote a book that decries the concept of a New World Order, but for more details, you'd probably want to just read the book yourself.

Once more, the fact that the word conspiracy theory is up there in parenthesis doesn't mean that this article is about a theory called NWO, it means "within the realm of conspiracy theory". And in that usage, the term Conspiracy theory does not mean a theory about conspiracy, it's a realm, just like Music theory, Set theory, Game theory, etc. -Verdatum (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone apparently didn't like my POV tag, but I already fixed the section and removed the tag anyway, so whatever. However, looking further down the line the whole article really needs work, so I moved the tag up to the top of the article. Hopefully some other vigilant Wikipedians will finish what I've started. And hopefully this won't turn into an edit war with pro-globalization editors accusing me and anyone else who tries to fix the article of "vandalism."--Antodav2007 (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems you have quite an agenda there, buddy, and no assumption of good faith at all. 78.49.50.178 (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

hahaha, maybe an agenda, or maybe an editing experience! :P 212.200.205.163 (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. Yet, you usually assume good faith and don't go around accusing people. If you wants to have your contributions discussed and entered into articles, that would be the wrong way to get entry. It makes you look bad and agenda-driven yourself. 78.49.50.178 (talk) 06:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Antodav2007, you seem to have a profoundly flawed understanding of neutrality. 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 critical, then Wikipedia should accurately reflect this viewpoint. If reliable sources use loaded, biased language attacking those on the far-right who believe in the New World Order conspiracy theories Wikipedia must present this language without passing judgment. Therefore, I will remove POV tags and revert your edits. FYI: I'm not pro-globalization. I'm for alter-globalization. --Loremaster (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

how do you count these reliable sources? just curious... 212.200.205.163 (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? Please read the Wikipedia:Reliable sources page. --Loremaster (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

i did read that, and that is why i asked you. because it seems you didn't read it: ...for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. you placed in 'conspiracy theory' lead some statements from people who's work has been cited by no-one. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, Naturally, it's more complicated than a tally of sources. For Fringe theories; that is, "ideas or collections of ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in their particular field of study", the guideline is to follow the instructions detailed at WP:FRINGE. -Verdatum (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

who talked about a fringe theory? 212.200.205.163 (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Check article topic. 78.49.50.178 (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

yes... and? is it fringe? [25] 212.200.205.163 (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Awwww... you seem to be confusing anti-globalization protest with militancy by anti-NWO conspiracy theorists. Not the same thing. --Loremaster (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

? 212.200.205.163 (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* What does your Google link to news about anti-globalization protests have to with a Wikipedia article on conspiracy theories about a New World Order? --Loremaster (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

And it looks to me as though Antodav2007 brings up reasonable arguments. I don't doubt there are POV issues that could be improved at this article. The best way to resolve them is to take inventory of things that appear non-neutral, and either fix them yourself, if a non-controversial fix can be found, or bring them to this page for discussion. The more detailed, the better; to point out questionable sentences or phrases, and if needed, provide an argument explaining why you think it fails to be neutral. (It'll probably be awhile before I can parse over the content myself with such a fine-toothed comb any time soon). -Verdatum (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Although I have replaced the term "lunatic fringe" with "radical right" only to avoid an unnecessary dispute, I disagree that Antodav2007 (who has revealed his strong bias by accusing editors who revert his edits of being "pro-globalization") brings up reasonable arguments. We must report what reliable sources state regardless of whether or not it is offensive to some. --Loremaster (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think User:Loremaster implicitly uncovered the solution (above): This article should be Split in two: (1) Pro, and (2) Con'. All one would need is to expound the views of each camp - but separately. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm strongly opposed to Ludvikus' proposal. A Wikipedia article cannot give undue weight to fringe theories especially when they are based on unreliable sources. --Loremaster (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article cannot claim something is fringe without reliable sources supporting that claim -- and according to NPOV. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you but where are the reliable sources for the notion that there actually is a secret society plotting to create a totalitarian New World Order through a one-world government? --Loremaster (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

you are confusing the concept of conspiracy theory with that of a fringe theory. there are many sources that claim there are many people believing in this theory. it is not a fringe theory. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is clearly a fringe theory, regardless of whether the number of adherents is 0.1%, 1%, or 10%, of those who have considered the issue. It's not more than that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

mainstream is view of majority, fringe theory departs from mainstream, therefore fringe is minority. and yet, about 40% of americans believed in UFO's some year. is it fringe? if yes, then definitions of fringe and mainstream need to be fixed. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

User:212.200.205.163, please provide reliable sources for all your claims or stop wasting our time with infowars.com-like rhetoric. --Loremaster (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

212, both WP:FRINGE and Fringe theory explicitly state that examples of fringe theories include conspiracy theories. The number of people that accept a theory to be true has no bearing one way or the other on whether or not it is fringe. -Verdatum (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

that doesn't say anything about this particular theory being fringe. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't have to. --Loremaster (talk) 01:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ludvikus, splitting an article into 'pro' and 'con' is the classic recipe for WP:POVFORK. It does not look to be appropriate for this topic at all. -Verdatum (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If you do it against consensus, yes. All I'm saying is that we should "consider" having an article which presents the view of those who believe in the "New World Order." That would mean presenting the views as expressed in the Primary sources. And we could also have an article which presents the scholarly view that there ain't such a thing. Take for example the two articles, Historical revisionism and Historical revisionism (negationism). The first is "Pro" and the second is "Con." Maybe that doesn't work, if the subject matter is not the same. The way to prevent the splitting would be to simply announce that this article only attempt to present what the NWO conspiracy theory is. For a critique of it you go to the Main article. Anyway, I'm only asking. If you think it's impossible, or not allowed, let me know. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that your example with articles related to historical revisionism is terribly flawed, I am strongly oppposed to the existence of a Wikipedia article that promotes fringe conspiracy theories by virtue of them being presented uncritically to readers. --Loremaster (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

They are not presented uncritically if you distance yourself from them. You can summarize what Hitler said in Mein Kompf without promoting it. That done at Wikipedia all the time. To present the biography of a murderer does not require one to recite how evil every act of his was. It may be difficult, or even impossible, but to present what the NWO conspiracy theory is doesn't necessarily require one to bombard the public with it's serious obvious flaws. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

1. There is obviously a difference between an article on a notable book and an article on fringe theories. Regardless, both are always presented critically. Obviously some do a better job than others.
2. It is against Wikipedia guidelines to have an article on fringe theories based only on primary (unreliable) sources.
3. Wikipedia guidelines generally encourage editors to merge rather than split articles on the same subject.
4. It is amazing (but not surprising) that your obsession with revamping articles on subjects you confess to be clueless about leads you to not only uncritically embrace the input of conspiracy theorists (who want to use Wikipedia to promote their conspiracy theories) on this talk page but actually make proposals that play directly into their hands. In other words, you seem ignorant of the fact that conspiracy theorists have, are, and will continue to try to edit this article to eliminate criticisms because they know how useful Wikipedia is in promoting fringe theories when they are presented uncritically. For example, prior to my critical revamping of this article, I googled the term "new world order" and found a number of conspiracy theorists quoting the Wikipedia article on New World Order (conspiracy theory) to support their beliefs! Not only have they been doing that less now but some prominent conspiracy theorists have actually taken the time to attack this article because they see it as a threat to their efforts to promote NWO conspiracy theories. This shows me that we are on the right track of making this article neutral.
5. Part of the appeal of conspiracy theories is that few people ever take the time to refute them. This unforntunately contributes to conspiracy theorists thinking that their ideas are credible. My experience with talking with conspiracy theorists on this talk page is that "bombarding" them with the serious flaws of their conspiracy theories is what made some of them question their fanatical beliefs for the first time.
6. That being said, the article only reflects what any academic or journalistic work on conspiracy theories would do. This is why people like Barkun think this article is sound and comprehensive as is. Splitting in two would destroy that...

--Loremaster (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you, Loremaster. I believe we are making progress. Except for (4.), which contains a Persona Attack, the other 5 are logical presentations of your position - so I'll respond (as if the Per. Att. in 4 hadn't happened).

1. Notable book v. Fringe theories. Himmm... Where do "fringe theories occur? In the air? In outer space? A notable book can be criticized because you can find it in a library somewhere. But your "fringe theories" seem like straw men, if you know what I mean. I tried to get some feed back from you about developing the "stub" on The New World Order (Robertson) - but you just ignored the issue - as if he's not notable, as if what he wrote in his book has no impact - I do not wish to insult the man, so I'll not fully site Adolf's autobiography. Nevertheless, it's a good example. One could summarize what he said, without being "critical," if by critical you mean constantly saying how evil his writing is. Ultimately, the stupidity of his views will reveal themselves. That's the basis of Freedom of the Press. When it comes to sex, Wikipedia is extremely graphic. But here, you seem to assume a mission of needing to protect the public. There's no such rule at Wikipedia.
2. That's true. But that means you don't use a Primary un-reputable source to evaluate another of the same genre. For example: The Cause of World Unrest and The International Jew are commentaries on The Protocols that promote them. Therefore, both of these are treated as Primary sources. As it turns out, the subject matter is far more hateful than NWO could ever be. Luckily for us editors, it's been conclusively established that the core of this text is a plagiarism, literary forgery, hoax, and a fraud. But here, we have no such thing. We have some complicated long laundry list of things that may be far too ambitious for a single article. There's just too much material. And it's not clear how everything ties up into a singular NWO phenomena described by this article.
3. The guidelines permit splitting when the article would be to long. We must acknowledge the complexity of this undertaking. The project is too un-wielding to be succinctly presented in one article.
4. There's no Wikipedia rule against conspiracy theorists promoting their views. Nevertheless - Wikipedia is well protected by the rule requiring Notability. Some un-notable Web site can be ignored. But Pat Robertson is extremely notable (forgive me Pat) as was Hitler. Therefore, we should permit the un-critical presentation of what Pat had written in his book. Wikipedia allows that. Our duty as editors is to make sure that what Pat had said, or written, is accurately presented. The fact that Nesta H. Webster , etc., were his sources is a fact that discredits Pat. Your "mission" to use Wikipedia as if you were a crusader is in appropriate - it's unsupported by explicit rules. However, we do have means to detect and block those who wish to use Wikipedia as a soap box. But the way to do all that is to enforce the explicit rules which Wikipedia has. Not to have you judge whether someone is a crackpot unworthy not writing here. I'm not going to mention the kind of criminals that exist in the world - but each of them is welcomed to contribute here if they abide by Wiki rules. That's how Wikipedia works. So you should get off your high horse.
5. There you go again with your noble mission. Reminds me of Don Quixote. In your presence I feel like one of the windmills he attacked because of his poor eye sight.
6. If that were only so.

--Ludvikus (talk) 23:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste my time debating with someone who 1) is ignorant of the subject of this article, 2) doesn't know nor understand basic Wikipedia guidelines, 3) is an extremely bad editor, and, most important of all, 4) can't be reasoned with. I'm more opposed to a split than any other convoluted proposal you have come up with so far. After a few tweaks to standardize footnotes, I will initiate the process for the article to be judged as a good article before trying to make it a featured article. So I thank you for the few minor improvements you did contribute and I apologize for the personal attacks even though I think they were justified. Goodbye. --Loremaster (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Culture of Conspiracy

[:File:Cover - Culture of Conspiracy - Michael Barkun.jpg|thumb|right|A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America by Michael Barkun (2003)]]

• A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America.

Comparative Studies in Religion and Society, 15. By Michael Barkun

• Hardcover: 255 pages

• Publisher: University of California Press; 1 edition (November 7, 2003)

• Language: English

• ISBN-10: 0520238052

• ISBN-13: 978-0520238053

(1) University of California Press: [26]

Chapter 5: [27]

(2) Google books: [28]

Contents: [29]

(3) Amazon.com: [30]

Book Review, etc.: [31]

• Question: It appears to me that this Article, "New World Order (conspiracy theory)," is substantially based on the above book.

And I wish to open a {{stub}} on the above book.

Doing so might appear that I'm doing a Point-of-View Split.

Therefore I seek comments here on my proposed Article.

Does anyone object to my starting a "Stub" on the above cited book by Michael Barkun?

--Ludvikus (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• PS: Thev book cover to the right is a far better image for the current article. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• The book cover clearly fails "fair use"; I've commented it out here, and removed it from the article. The article is not about the book. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• I disagree with the above section, but it would probably be acceptable to create a stub on the book, unless you are intending to use an article on the book to create a fork about the subject covered by the book, which is pretty much this one. You'll misinterpret whatever I say, so I don't know why I bothering to say it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks Arthur. But don't anticipate me. On the one hand, you say it's OK to develop the stub. But you're warning me against a Fork. So what do I have to do to avoid a Fork? --Ludvikus (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think I can help you with that; you don't understand WP:CONSENSUS, so I'm not sure I can explain to you the more complex WP:CFORK. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• I oppose adding this image to the article for all the reasons explained by Arthur Rubin. --Loremaster (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Briefly, Arthur Rubin, pleae explain what it is about WP:CONSENSUS that you wish me to understand. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Try most of the points in Wikipedia:What is consensus?. You've shown failure to understand most of them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This list should work better Wikipedia:CONSENSUS#What_consensus_is 212.200.205.163 (talk) 10:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I find that less understandable, but perhaps others would differ. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

About "See also" sections

"See also" are a list, lists are worse then text. Wiki is not paper, we should have room to discuss all related issues, and "See also", which rarely discuss the linked items, give little indication why they are relevant. According to some Wikipedia administrators: 1) if something is in See also, try to incorporate it into main body 2) if something is in main body, it should not be in see also and therefore 3) good articles should not have See also sections even if the vast majority of articles have them. --Loremaster (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Loremaster, are you perhaps confusing "See Also" links with "External Links". I do know that there are editors (especially at Good Article Review) that feel ELs should be limited. I have yet to come across one that has expressed the same about "See Also" links. The entire point of "See Also" sections is to point the reader to tangentially related articles. We list articles in a "See Also" section when there is a connection between the two topics that isn't really worth discussing in the article. Blueboar (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar, I have been contributing to Wikipedia for over 5 years. During this time, I have improved the quality of numerous articles and some of them have appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article. So trust me when I say that I know everything you are telling me about See also sections and I am not confusing anything. I am simply proposing a better way of doings things that was suggested to me by a Wikipedia administrator 4 years ago. If you don't agree with this proposal, I can respect that. However, please stop lecturing me like I'm a newbie. ;) --Loremaster (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Loremaster, Please forgive me if I offended... that was not my intent. It really did look to me as if you had confused the two. I stand corrected. I do disagree with your reasoning for not including "See Also" sections. You say that your take on this reflects the opinion of an admin. OK. But even admins can hold unique or minority views on our practices. And individual admins get it wrong sometimes. If this view had consensus, we would not have "See Also" sections in almost all of our Featured and Good Articles (and we do). As to the inclusion of a "See Also" section in this article... that is a matter for local consensus. I think we should. Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I am well aware that this view doesn't have consensus yet in the Wikipedia community. That being said, beyond the reasons I have already given, my concern is that, since there is no requirement that a contributor explains why an internal link in the See also section is related to the suject of the article, cranks may and often do use See also sections to dump links that are only related to the subject in their creative imagination. --Loremaster (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Strong support for a "See also" section: I see no relevance of an editor here being an Administrator as well. As Jimbo Wales has stated, an ADM is simple another editor with special privileges (one being the power to Block you). Furthermore, we are not in a position to judge any contributor as a "crank. There is no such rule. There are all kinds of rules to handle different editors who do not conform to the requirements of Wikipedia. I submit that this Article was, and still is, so purely poorly written, that anyone who did not conform to the preconceived idea of a single editor here (I will not name him) was cast aside as a "crank." This must stop. And a "See also" section ought to be included. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You are obviously entitled to your opinion but I will oppose the creation of a See Also section. Moving on. --Loremaster (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I second the worthwhile addition of a "see also" section on the grounds it would provide an avenue of education for those seeking information on the topic, rather than the dead end this article as currently presented representsBatvette (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Question: So do we now have a Consensus for a "See also" Section? --Ludvikus (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It depends on what is to be added.

1. Links which appear in the body should rarely be added to the "See also" section.
2. Articles which are only tangentially related should rarely be added to the "See also" section.
3. Articles which are related to only in the mind of the editor should not be added to the "See also" section.

   I'm certain this last category is what Ludvikus wants to add.

I would say that, in spite of Loremaster's opinion, there is consensus for the addition of a See also section if there is something to be added.

(Replying, to the above, We are in the position and have the duty to judge any contribution as that of a crank, regardless of the identity of the contributor. Those contributors who frequently make clearly inappropriate contributions may not be given as much slack when they make contributions which are only marginally inappropriate as a new editor, or one who has made many appropriate contributions.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Arthur Rubin. I'm certainly not certain that you're a mind reader. But I'm 100% certain that you've read my mind wrong in the above. As for the external world, I'm only certain that a complex article like this one ought to have a "See also" section. I also think that it's not required to judge contributors as cranks (thank God you haven't called me one). It's sufficient to demonstrate the inappropriateness of the edit - as "un-notable" for example. I also would like to see you make the first contribution to such a section. That way I would learn from your example. At the moment, I wouldn't say I'm "certain" of it, but I'm afraid that ANY contribution of mine would be Reverted on whatever grounds you arbitrarily choose. I wish you would begin showing me, through your remarks directed explicitly at me, that there are grounds for me to assume WP:Good faith with respect to you. Your "ability" to predict what I will, or will not, do - cannot make me believe in anything but bad faith on your part towards me. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, since the question of consensus has been raised and I haven't weighed in on this issue yet, my feelings are that anyone is welcome to create/expand a seealso section. However, I intend to remove any entries in the section that are against WP:SEEALSO, particularly links rundundant to the main text. Links that do satisfy criteria to be added to seealso, should be worked into the text if appropriate, and then removed from the seealso section. Oh, and it's A Good Thing when see-also entries are followed by a quick line explaining the topic and how it relates to this topic whenever non-obvious. It makes integrating them easier, and makes for a better article. -Verdatum (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If good editors like Verdatum and Arthur Rubin are viligant about what gets added to a See also section I will no longer oppose it's creation. --Loremaster (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Since Arthur emphasized the importance of CONSENSUS so many times, I've examined Archive 3 to see what it is you objected to, regarding User:Batvette. But the only remarks relating to User:Batvette in Archive 3 are personal attacks on him by you, User:Loremaster. Therefore, since there's nothing to discredit User:Batvette, we have no choice but to give weight to his view in computing Consensus. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Proposal: That a "See also" section be added, and that it include, as an item, "New world order." --Ludvikus (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A "hat note" seems appropriate; as the disambiguation pages for New world order and New World Order have been combined, a single not at the top seems appopriate. An entry in the "See also" section is clearly not appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Correction: I really meant the more specific Article: New world order (politics). --Ludvikus (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Still Oppose, although if you can propose an appropriate change to the hat note, I wouldn't summarily revert it as vandalism. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Ludvikus, all of the New World Order titled articles are covered by the hat-note (top of the page) link to New World Order, since it is a disambiguation page. None of them need to be included in a see-also section. -Verdatum (talk) 08:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ludvikus, your lack of knowledge on the subject (and, since it's been going on for weeks now, your refusal to gain at least a basic overview on it) begins to show in a definite misjudgment of people's utterances. This article has been flooded by people proposing said conspiracy theory, batvette has shown in his polite proposals that he either adheres to them or has is as knowledgeable on them as you are. The article as it is reports on the scholarly literature written on a subject. Sure, it may be improved, but a) NPOV and b) knowledgeable. 134.106.41.232 (talk) 08:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for you're polite beginning. But it later developes into an improper remark: "your lack of knowledge." But it's mild, compared to what came from the other(s) (one or two whom I shall not name). This Article names its Sources/References. The most heavily cited is Michael Barkun - I've ordered his book from Amazon.com, and am looking forward to getting it any day, and reading it. In the mean time, I'm focused on this "See also" section. Two other items that might go on it are Globalization and Trilateralism. The opponents of the former were not all Conspiracists. On the other hand, the opponents of the latter opposed it before "New World Order" became a "magnet" term of Conspiricists. One thing seems clearer to me know - there was no "New World Order Conspiracy Theory/ies" before 1990. And this article is still of an extremely poor quality from the historical point of view. It seems to me to be based on tertiary sources far more than it is on secondary sources, or even primary sources. I do not see it yet as a good historical presentation of who said what when. It appears to be a study of what is the composition, or rutes, of what is called NWO. If it was a presentation of Michael Barkun's analysis, the way one would give the view of Karl Marx by a summary of the scholarly secondary sources, I'd have no problem. But it seems to me still to be substantially the Original Research of one editor, namely User:Loremaster. Just because one attaches a footnotes to a sentences and paragraphs does not necessarily make the article immune from the charge of Original Research. Furthermore, it's becoming clearer all the time that this is an article about a phenomena (NWO) that did not exist before 1990. Also, those who oppose Globalization and not necessarily conspiracists. Finally, I object to calling people "cranks," "crackpots," etc. Not only are such people often no different than those who believe in a religion, or system like Marxism, but there's no reason to presume that they are incapable of contributing constructively to Wikipedia. Wikipedia has many rules to deal with what would degrade it, including the demand that it not become a soap box, and that notable sources be cited.
• Unfortunately, editors are more inclined to write the "big" articles. But the article on Pat Robertson's book on the New World Order is neglected. I've asked support for my writing about his views there, but neither User:Loremaster, nor User:Arthur Rubin, have indicated any support - and I'm in danger of being accused by them of point-of-view forking. In fact, User:Loremaster has already left a message on Administrator User:Arthur Rubin's Talk page that he would support 100% my being Blocked from Wikipedia, and User:Arthur Rubin is encouraged to commence the procedure to get me Blocked. Those are the circumstances under which an editor like myself must live if this article is to receive input from another besides the editor who "owns" this page. But the issue before us is to tie this article to other pages. And I think it should be obvious that the {{main}} should be New world order (politics), and not what it apparently relates to at the moment, which is Conspiracy theory. But that may require argument for, and against. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Globalization is not appropriately related to conspiracy theory. Nor is the Trilateral Commission. The concerns raised in the Criticism section of the later article are legitimate political issues, not conspiracy theories. Ludvikus, I'm not sure you understand that a see-also section is generally considered An Ungood Thing; it's not something to strive for. -Verdatum (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps there is some rule against that. But my recollection is of this: {{orphan}}. That's the exact opposite of what you say. So it seems to me you're contradicted by the mere existence of this Tag. Regarding your other point I also strongly disagree because the {{main}} topic is - or should be - New world order (politics) and not Conspiracy theory. You'll probably are suprised by this - but not so if you follow the logic of it. The main topic is Woodrow Wilson's presentation of the Fourteen Points in 1918, not the NWO conspiracy theory of about 1990. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Your argument about the orphan tag makes no sense at all. The fact that it's bad to have orphaned articles has nothing to do with the fact that it's less than good to have see-also sections. Your other argument makes no sense either because {{main}} is for linking to appropriate sub-articles by way of WP:SUMMARY style. Perhaps you mean "Primary topic". Neither this article or the political interpretation is a primary topic. There isn't a primary topic. That's why New World Order is a disambiguation page, and that's A Good Thing. -Verdatum (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope this exchange between Ludvikus and Verdatum convinces everyone of the validity of my repeated criticisms of Ludvikus's lack of understanding of Wikipedia guidelines. --Loremaster (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is about paranoid conspiracy theories about a New World Order in the form of a totalitarian world government. Items listed in the See also section must be directly related to this topic. Although New World Order conspiracism is in part a right-wing reaction to globalization, I don't see the relevance of linking to the globalization article in a See also section. A link to an article on "right-wing opposition to globalization" would make more sense if such an article exists. As for the Trilateral Commission, we already mention them in the Round Table section as well as the Alleged Conspirators section. But, ultimately, rational criticisms of both globalization and trilateralism should not be in this article.

That being said, investigative reporter Chip Berlet clearly explained that New World Order conspiracism was a phenomena that did exist before 1990 when he stated:

When President Bush announced his new foreign policy would help build a New World Order, his phrasing surged through the Christian and secular hard right like an electric shock, since the phrase had been used to represent the dreaded collectivist One World Government for decades. Some Christians saw Bush as signaling the End Times betrayal by a world leader. Secular anticommunists saw a bold attempt to smash US sovereignty and impose a tyrannical collectivist system run by the United Nations

Ludvikus, what part of the sentence in bold do you not understand? --Loremaster (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Although I am still looking for and would love to find out who were the first conspiracy theorists to use the term "New World Order" to refer to a conspiracy for totalitarian one-world government, Barkun has stated: "It was almost certainly before 1980, but I know of no one who has tracked the phrase back that far." So if it turns out that it impossible to know who said what when, the article will have to stand as it is. --Loremaster (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

One last thing: I'm not going to deny there might be a few sentences in the article that might be vulnerable to valid criticisms of original research. However, the vast majority of accusations of original research by Ludvikus comes from his confessed ignorance of the subject of this article as well as his convoluted understanding of Wikipedia guidelines. Rather than calling for him to be blocked from Wikipedia, I suggest Ludvikus takes a break from editing this article long enough for him to read Barkun's book and essays from other academics who have studied New World Order conspiracism as well as seek the help of an administrator that can tutor him into better understanding Wikipedia guidelines relevant to the disputes we are constantly having over this article. Is this unreasonable of me to ask? --Loremaster (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Loremaster owns this article, we should do what he says. Portillo (talk) 01:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I prefer an American Revolution.

But the time must be right.

And so must the tactics.

A "See also" section does not seem like the right terrain.

Like Ike, we should plan the Invasion of Normandy.

A "Master of Lore"? User:Loremaster?

Who taunts and bates us, Masterbates.

Reminds me rather of one of my favorites: The Emperor's New Clothes.

Here my list for him:

1. George Washington
2. No entangling alliances
3. Isolationism
4. United States non-interventionism
5. Woodrow Wilson
6. World War I
7. Fourteen Points - Point Fourteen in particular - as it relates to "New world order"?
8. League of Nations - USA does not join, Wilson's failure, deemed a "dreamer"
9. World War II

• A word to the wise is sufficient.

The actual sources used by the owner of this page are

1. Chip Berlet, and
2. Michael Barkun,

and is partly a journalistic,

part a sociological,

and part Master of Lore analysis

of a hodge podge collection of conspiracies that mysteriously coalesce into a New World Order (conspiracy theory)

which we're supposed to understand

because our Master

truly understands his

Lore.

• Now does anyone understand the relation of the above outline of elements of American History

and it relates to the International Relations notion of New world order (politics)

and those who are isolationists but in the extreme?

--Ludvikus (talk) 01:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ludvikus, I have been contributing to Wikipedia for over 5 years. During this time, I have improved the quality of numerous articles from a relatively neutral point of view despite my secular rational humanist perspective. The fact that some of these articles appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article demonstrates my knowledge and respect for Wikipedia guidelines and standards. And I have been praised for my work by people from both sides of any given issue. However, I have also had to endure every violation of behavioral guidelines one can imagine including insults, personal attacks, threats, and harassement but I'm still here despite all that abuse. Therefore, regardless of how diplomatic you might be, your comments on this talk page have convinced me (and probably a few reasonable observers of our discussions) that you are in fact a crank who can seriously damage the quality of this article if you have your way. I don't own this article but I do watch over it in light of my declared interest in improving it until it meets good article criteria. So I will protect it from you or people like Batvette who want to turn it into a vehicle for conspiracy theories. --Loremaster (talk) 02:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• If I had my way, and Reason ruled over this Page rather than your kind of Provocative Confrontational Passion, I would not need to call you a Crank, nor would I need to call you a Megalomaniac. But as things stand, I must make believe that you're a nonexistent nonentity and try to address myself to those who have some substantial education in American history. Instead of wallowing in the gutter and sewers, where the Cranks you seem to be an expert on dwell, I'd like to direct your attention to the long tradition of Isolationism in the United States that took a drastic turn around in World War I. It is at that time that the notion of a "new world order" emerges. And it is about this idea that Wikipedia has an article called "New world order (politics)." Without knowing the history of what that's about, there is no way that one can write significantly about the notion this article is about. Although I have not yet acquired Michael Barkun's book, I have found a wonderfully informative review of his book. The review informs me that it was the First President Bush who invoked the notion of a "new world order," in the 1990's, and that it was to this that the American public reacted in the extreme. It is also pretty much clear to me now that Bush I must have meant NWO in the "political" sense. That should define the parameters of this article - which clearly need substantial trimming to rid it of the excess verbiage that's due to the over-ambitious contributions of our Loremaster who dreams of having this article attain notability at Wikipedia. If we can join forces and put this Master of Lore in his appropriate place, we will be able, possibly, to turn this article into a good account of it's topic. What we need now to do is to focus our attention on the exact speech of Bush 1 wherein he apparently called for a "new world order."
• There's also another issue here: it is that of the sociological analysis, by a political scientist, of the nature of some of this conspiricism. If that's the case, what is required is a presentation of the view of Michael Barkun the way one might summarize the psychoanalytic view of Sigmund Freud. Unfortunately, this article is a nightmare to anyone versed in American history, current events, and popular culture. There are several explicit notable "New World Order" conspiricists, and Michael Barkun writes about them - one of them is Pat Robertson. But I cannot bare to read this article through - it has such a horrible a-historical presentation. Perhaps these NWO notables are discussed further down - if so, I haven't reached them - and never will, if the hodge-podge analysis of all these many conspiracies aren't pruned out of this article. I cannot imagine any NWO conspiricist more notable than Pat Robertson - so can somebody please tell me what does this article have to do with Pat Robertson's beliefs, if anything? --Ludvikus (talk) 04:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• So let's begin at the beginning. Here's Bush I.'s Speech to Congress regarding the "New World Order", on March 6, 1991 (extracts): [32]. --Ludvikus (talk) 05:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• And for those who do not wish to read it all, here the excerpt in which Bush I explicitly uses the "New World Order" phrase:

    Now, we can see a new world coming into view.
    A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order.
    In the words of Winston Churchill,
    a "world order" in which "the principles of justice and fair play ... protect the weak against the strong ..."
    A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate,
    is poised to fulfil the historic vision of its founders.
    A world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations.
    
    The Gulf war put this new world to its first test, and, my fellow Americans, we passed that test.
    
    For the sake of our principles, for the sake of the Kuwaiti people, we stood our ground.
    Because the world would not look the other way, Ambassador [Saud Nasir] al-Sabah, to-night, Kuwait is free.
    
    Tonight as our troops begin to come home, let us recognise that the hard work of freedom still calls us forward.
    We’ve learned the hard lessons of history.
    The victory over Iraq was not waged as "a war to end all wars."
    Even the new world order cannot guarantee an era of perpetual peace."
    But enduring peace must be our mission ...

Quting the first President Bush. --Ludvikus (talk) 05:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ludvikus is still confusing New world order (politics) and New World Order (Conspiracy Theory). A distinction that has already been made before Loremaster started working on the article and is made in other language Wikipedias, the German one, for example (whose New World Order (Verschwörungstheorie) article is quite horrible compared to this one). 92.76.129.224 (talk) 09:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

1. I'm NOT confusing the two. I'm saying the two are related. And they are so according to our major source, Michael Barcun. Just because we have two articles reflecting a distinction, doe not mean that we must treat the two subject matters as if they were un-related. Our subject matter here involves a historical phenomena that emerged in the 1990's - and it's directly related to that "New World Order" speech before Congress President George H. W. Bush had given on March 6, 1991 [33]]. Why else is this article called the "New World Order Conspiracy Theory"? Is it just a coincidence? But it doesn't matter whether we agree about the connection, because our sources assert the connection. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
2. Here's an exact quote from a review of Michael Barkun's book: Why did the harmless-looking phrase, "New World Order," take on a sinister connotation as soon as the first President Bush uttered it? --11:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
3. The quote immediately above ("2.") is from a John J. Reillys book review of Michel Barkun's work: [34]. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
4. In fact the lede of Reilly's book review shows us that this article is a poor quality corruption of Michael Barkun's thesis and model:

    Why did Timothy McVeigh visit Area 51, the alleged flying-saucer test range, and view the film "Contact" on death row?
    Why did the harmless-looking phrase, "New World Order," take on a sinister connotation as soon as the first President Bush uttered it?
    Why does the acronym FEMA send chills down the spines of a substantial number of Americans?
    We cannot dismiss these facts as unrelated coincidences.
    No: they are all evidences of a strange mutation that occurred in American popular culture in the 1990s,
    when formerly obscure forms of esotericism and conspiracy theory fused with traditional millennialism and popular pseudo-science.
    The result was not a movement, but a worldview that threatens to undermine trust in public institutions, and maybe even consensus reality.
    
    Such is the argument of this useful book by political scientist Michael Barkun of Syracuse University,
    one of the leading authorities on the political implications of contemporary millennialism.
    The literature of conspiracy theory is vast and rarely a pleasure to read,
    so there is something to be said for any survey that shrinks the Illuminati, the Men in Black, and the Hollow Earth itself to manageable dimensions.
    The chief merit of this book, though, is the description of a dynamic in contemporary conspiracy theory,
    one that turns ordinary popular culture into a venue for the propagation of ideas that the consensus culture has not just dismissed, but condemned.
    This model may exaggerate certain features of the popular mind, but it clearly does have some applications.

Quoting above from John J. Reillys book review of Michael Barkun's work: [35].--Ludvikus (talk) 11:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

1. No one is disputing that New world order (politics) and New World Order (conspiracy theory) are related. The problem is that your arguments seem to confuse the two.

2. A poorly-phrased rhetorical question by a reviewer of a book doesn't change the fact that investigative reporter Chip Berlet clearly explained that New World Order conspiracism was a phenomena that did exist before 1990 when he stated:

When President Bush announced his new foreign policy would help build a New World Order, his phrasing surged through the Christian and secular hard right like an electric shock, since the phrase had been used to represent the dreaded collectivist One World Government for decades. Some Christians saw Bush as signaling the End Times betrayal by a world leader. Secular anticommunists saw a bold attempt to smash US sovereignty and impose a tyrannical collectivist system run by the United Nations

Bush's use of the term simply made conspiracy theorists think that the imposition of a New World Order was imminent and visible as opposed to being in the distant future and cryptocratic.

3. Putting aside the fact that basing your judgement of Micheal Barkun's book A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America (which you haven't read yet) and the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article (which you haven't read nor understood completely) on a review of Barkun's book is laughable, Barkun is the only living person on this planet who has the authority to judge whether or not this article is a poor quality corruption of his thesis and model. As everyone can see from his comments in a section below, Barkun himself has reviewed this article and judged it be sound and comprehensive! Although the article can always be improved to provide a more historical presentation of New World Order conspiracism (that's what the History of the term section is for after all), your criticisms are absurd. --Loremaster (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hangon!

1. I assume that there are readers and editors who are swayed by your WP:Personal attacks. That's really my concern with that. So I ask all of you - who are not User:Loremaster, or Masters of Lore, please don't listen to the not very nice things said about me when you're evaluating this article. In fact, recognize these personal attacks for what they are - the irrational outbursts of an individual whose desperately trying to win a hopeless argument.
2. Notice, dear reader, the sudden flip to world government when traveling back in time before 1991. In other words, an admission that the 1991 speech was the defining moment for the subject of this article. The fact that other conspiracy theories existed before, and are similar, is irrelevant, nor is it surprising - after all, all paranoids believe that someone's ot to get them.
3. Finally, there's an implicit or effective admission here that this article is about the thesis, or model, proposed and expounded by Michael Barkun, regarding the Culture of Conspiracy (I assume it to be the contemporary culture of the United States, since 1991), and that at the core of this culture are Apocalyptic visions. I have no problem with that. In fact that's one of the questions I've been asking. Therefore, the article ought to be appropriately re-named to indicate that it's about his analysis of this contemporary culture.

--Ludvikus (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

1. I don't need to personally attack you since I think most objective observers of this talk page will come to the same conclusion I have simply by reading your words...
2. *sigh* There is no flip. You simply refuse to understand that conspiracy theories equating New World Order with One World Government probably started in the 1940s. Bush's use of the term simply made conspiracy theorists think their worst fears had come true.
3. The notion that we should rename this article simply because Barkun's book is the primary source is not only absurd but is not supported by any Wikipedia guideline.

--Loremaster (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

"In" Conspiracy theory ... v. "A" Conspiracy theory ....

• What "type" of conspiracy theory is it?

User:Arthur Rubin has just Reverted my edit in which I replaced the opening sentence of the lede, "In Conspiracy theory..." with "A Conspiracy theory ...".

He posted his reason by say that it was not "a" Conspiracy theory, but a "type" of Conspiracy theory.

I disagree and ask for him to explain his distinction. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not a single conspiracy theory, as you've been falsely asserting ever since you started editing the article; it's a type of conspiracy theory, as described in the lede. The shadowy figures differ from theorist to theorist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The term "new world order" has several meanings. It means one thing in international relations theory and means something radically different in conspiracy theory. This is why it would be misleading to start off the article by stating that "the New World Order is a conspiracy theory". --Loremaster (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Arthur - I've not been asserting falsely as you say - I've been asking, repeatedly, what this article is about. You guys have insisted that the word "theory" (singular) remain, and that we not substitute the plural "theories" in its place. But if you say that it's a "type" - then there are more than one - what are these? How many are there? How does this "type" fit among the nameless others? Obviously, there must be some reason for the label, "New World Order." So according to you, this names a TYPE. What type?
2. So User:Loremaster, (1) according to you, there's no relation to the International Relations & Politics meaning of NWO. So why is the term "NWO" tied to the phenomena? (2) So what is this special meaning associated with NWO "conspiracy theory"?

--Ludvikus (talk) 00:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You've been told, repeatedly, what the article is about. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't find it on your talk page, because you archive in less than 24 hours. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't change the subject. The issue involves two word. I substituted "A" for "In" and you Reverted. Now justify your reversion. The discussion has nothing to do with your "teaching" me something on my Talk page, Arthur. Just explain why you reverted by replacement of a two-letter word my a one-letter word. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is more proper to say that "New World Order" is a term that has a specific meaning in conspiracy theory (rather than say that "New World Order" is a type of conspiracy theory) in order to allude to the fact that it has other meanings. --Loremaster (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Good. Thanks for discussing the subject matter. You say that NWO... "is a term that has a specific meaning in conspiracy theory...". So you claim that there is a "conspiracy theory," meaning a "theory of conspiracies"? --Ludvikus (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

My only claim is that the term "New World Order" means one thing in conspiracy theory and that it means something radically different in international relations theory. --Loremaster (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not true - or if you mean what you're saying you're really not saying what you mean. Is it an amazing coincidence that both phenomena are named by "new world order"? The authorities tell us the contrary - that there's a historical connection between the two - that the newer is a reaction to the older. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean the political movement is a reaction to the conspiracy theory? (Getting back to the real world...) I believe the cluster of conspiracy theories predates the name given by the name of the political movement; only the details have changed. However, I'd want evidence before that could be placed in the article, as well. Still, you'd need a reliable source to state that the conspiracy theory is a reaction to the political movement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You got it backwards, Arthur. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

As the article clearly explains, during the 20th century, many statesmen used the term "new world order" to refer to a new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power after World War I and World War II. They all saw these periods as opportunities to implement idealistic or liberal proposals for global governance only in the sense of new collective efforts to identify, understand, or address worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual nation-states to solve. Meanwhile, activists around the globe formed a world federalist movement bent on creating a “real” new world order in the sense of a full-fledged social democratic world government. In reaction, In reaction, conspiracy theorists of the American secular and Christian right began misinterpreting any use of term “new world order” by members of the Establishment as a call for the imposition of a state atheistic and bureaucratic collectivist world government. What part of that do you not understand? --Loremaster (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

1991 is the focal year. Bushes uses the expression "New World Order" in his speech before the joint sessions of Congress. This is the sense in which the expression was used during World War I. It's connected with the Fourteen Points and the Allies' idea of the War to End All Wars. And now I see Loremaster is attempting to summarize the article: New world order (politics). That's un-necessary. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

No one is disputing that 1990 (not 1991) is a significant year in New World Order conspiracism. What you fail to understand is the history that preceded it... --Loremaster (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

STOP telling me what you imagine I fail to understand. That's at best, impolite. Make your point, whatever it is. These kinds of comments of yours are merely irritants - like a mouse in up elephant's trunk. What you want me to understand turns out to be your semi-original research into the conspiracies which preceded 1991 and have been, and continue to be, recycled. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to continue exposing how your ignorance (which is wilfull in some cases) is a problem. If it irritates you, get lost. That being said, although Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points and the Allies' idea of the War to End All Wars may have been an influence on Bush's worldview and speech, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make since mine is that conspiracy theorists associated the term "New World Order" with "One World Government" BEFORE Bush's speech. But neither Wilson nor Bush used the term New World Order to mean world government. They simply called for idealistic internationalism. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either an extreme isolationist or a conspiracy theorist... --Loremaster (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you keep making accusation of "semi-original research" when my claims about New World Order conspiracism preceding 1990 are based on an exact quote of an essay by investigative reporter Chip Berlet. Have you read it yet? Oh wait. Probably not. --Loremaster (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, summarizing the content of the New world order (politics) article in the History of the term section of the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article is necessary to give proper context to New World order conspiracism. Opposition to this makes no-sense. --Loremaster (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

On Batvette

1. User:Loremaster, calling someone a "Crank" or a "Conspiracist" are Personal Attacks prohibited by WP:Personal attacks.
2. User:Loremaster, it's none of your [x] business to tell us your opinion or conclusion as to what someone believes (It's taking me a tremendous amount of will power not to put in the f-word where the x now is). And it's irrelevant whether someone believes that the earth is flat. What matters is the specific edits made.
3. Conclusion: User:Loremaster, "Don't be a dick" anymore - STOP your Personal Attacks on User:Batvette. If you cannot do it, pick on someone who can handle it - and who may yet get you Blocked for doing this to User:Batvette. What you are doing to him now is obviously Disruptive.

--Ludvikus (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ludvikus, stop wasting your breath. Nothing you say will influence how I choose to interact with disruptive forces like Batvette or you for that matter. --Loremaster (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't researched your quotation sources above. But I know enough to say to you that it's not me you're quoting, and again: User talk:Loremaster, Wikipedia:Don't be a dick. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm having a discussion with Batvette about his quotes not yours. So get lost! --Loremaster (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

PS1: Since this article is about "Conspiracy theory"/"Conspiracy theories," you might actually profit, User:Loremaster, from the informative input of Conspiracists. Didn't Freud teach us that if you wish to understand mental health, study the sick? But the question here is whose uttering "sick" remarks here. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Despite my criticisms of Batvette, I have never denied that his input has contributed to my improving the article once I sanitize it of convoluted thinking. The mention of the Georgia Guidestones is proof of that. --Loremaster (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

PS2: The Georgia Guidestones was built in 1979. What does it have to do with the NWO CT that emerged on, about, or after 1991? --Ludvikus (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ludvikus, if you had read the Occultism section of the article (like a normal Wikipedia editor who has taken interest in this article), you would know the answer to your own question... So read the article before critiquing it or get lost. --Loremaster (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

PS3: I don't trust your quotations, User:Loremaster. Are you quoting yourself above, partly a plagiarism? Why must you clutter this page? About three(3) or less Diffs would have been sufficient. Could it be that these quotes of yours are out of context? Is that the best you can do to discredit another Wikipedian editor, by the name of User:Batvette? --Ludvikus (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ludvikus, although all these quotations of Batvette's words can be found in Archive 3 and people are free to check if I've taken them out of context, I am not posting there to convince you since you are as much as problem for this article as Batvette as been in the past. You are both cranks. The only difference is that, as far as I know, you don't believe in conspiracy theories while Batvette clearly does. --Loremaster (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Why read something where you know, 99%, that you'll be misinformed. Unfortunately, the Michael Barkun book has not yet arrived. But the two authorities - the only ones you explicitly mention in this talk page, Barkun and Betcep Berlet (not to be confused with Batvette) have postings on the Web - and that I've read. So why read the Trash that's now quite obvious is the Original research of one editor, namely you? I'd like to say that you're being cranky now, but I won't, and simply endure your Personal Attack. Anyway, at the moment the Consensus appears to be against you, Loremaster. I assure you that the moment a third editor steps into the ring, here, I'll stop, and follow the Consensus established. But at the moment it's me defending User:Batvette against your Personal Attacks. Why don't you take a break for a week or two, and see if you can calm down from your constant personal attacks. When you come back you can always revert to your old version. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

1. The name of the investigative reporter who is used as a source is Chip Berlet not Betcep.
2. Since a lead is by defintion a concise yet comprehensive summary of the article, it is INSANE to judge whether the lead does a good job of summarizing the article if one doesn't read (and understand) the entire artice. This is probably the best grounds to have you banned from Wikipedia. Although I see Batvette as a disruptive conspiracy theorist, I can at least respect him for having the common-sense to read the article before he dismissed it as biased.
3. I'm don't know why you keep using and abusing the word "consensus" when you are the only person currently criticizing the article for supposedly not respecting some imagined consensus. If you seriously think that you and Batvette form a legitimate consensus against me, you are a greater crank than he is.
4. I will only calm down when you leave this article (and its talk page) alone or when you get banned from Wikipedia.

--Loremaster (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact is, that this is getting boring. It seems that only two people are having a discussion now - you and me. And it seems that even Arthur Rubin has abandoned you. Anyway, I'll probably not even wait for a third voice - it seems that you're now the only one substantially committed to this article. And if no one is - way should I wast my time? I'll enjoy reading and studying the original source(s) when it/they arrive. Nevertheless, I must say this. Wikipedia is not your personal soap box. You announced your mission to (1) rid this page of contributions by those you deem to be conspiracists, and (2) to insure that the view of this conspiracy theory is not presented uncritically. I'm not quite sure exactly what you mean. But your cause sounds noble. Nevertheless, neither belongs here. It is irrelevant what creed someone belongs to when editing a Wikipedia article. Also, one reads an article, one goes there to discover the fact. In this case, I want to know what the NWO conspiracy theory is. It seems that you've set another goal. It seems you wish to reform Conspiracists out of their conspiratorial beliefs. Now it's theoretical possible that Jimbo Wales gave you that special mission. If so, I don't know of it. And I also have extreme doubts about that. But hey, anythings possible, right? (Don't answer that rhetorical question). Are you not going to call me a "conspiracist" for that last remark? Instead of doing that, I strongly suggest that you re-examine what mission you've set for yourself, and the rest of us Wikipedians. When I look up Eschatology I'm not hit with critical presentations challenging Christians, or Jews, for their beliefs. Why must the situation be different when presenting an article on whatever the NWO CT phenomena is? In, fact WP:NPOV requires as I've set forth herein. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Ludvikus, we can finally agree on something. You have been boring me for weeks. ;)
2. I don't think Arthur Rubin has abandonned me since I've never thought of him as being on anyone's side. That being said, Rubin agrees with me that Batvette is a crank. Furthermore, you seem to be grossly misinterpreting the differences Rubin and I have on the issue of adding a summary of the Domhoff quote in the the lead section. The irony in all of this is that I was the person who added that entire quote in the lead in February 2009 and fought to keep it there until Batvette and others unintentionally convinced me to move it to the Alleged conspirators section of the article!
3. I never treated this article as my "soap box". The vast majority of statements are quotes or paraphrases of text from reliable sources such as scholars like Barkun and Domhoff or reporters like Berlet.
4. I never announced that my mission was to "rid this page of contributions by those whom I deem to be conspiracists". I've only said that I have and will protect this acticle from edits by people who want to promote what reliable sources have judged to be paranoid conspiracy theories such as the ridiculous claim that the Illuminati continue to exist and are plotting to impose a totalitarian one-world government. I will especially revert edits which insert claims based on unreliable sources or that are simply unsourced.
5. Presenting New World Order conspiracy theory (or any fringe theory for that matter) critically yet neutrally is not only perfectly consistant with Wikipedia guidelines but it is what these guidelines demand.
6. 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 critical, then Wikipedia should accurately reflect this viewpoint.
7. Contrary to the popular understanding of the word, "criticism" can be negative or positive or both since the term "critic" refers to someone who expresses a reasoned opinion on any matter especially involving a judgment of its value, truth, righteousness, beauty, or technique; while the term "social critics" refers to academics and journalists who engage in critical thinking and critical analysis to study social issues. Knowing what New World Order conspiracy theory is and isn't therefore requires knowing what social critics like Barkun, Domhoff and Berlet think and say.
8. There is a difference between a fringe theory and a world religion. They can obviously not be treated the same way in an encyclopedic article. Fringe theories cannot be presented uncritically in their own articles. That being said, there are articles for Criticism of Christianity and Criticism of Judaism.
9. That's my mission/goal. It has nothing to do with being "noble". It has all to with following the spirit, mission/goal and guidelines of Wikipedia.

--Loremaster (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Review of Michael Barkun's Reviewed book by Daniel Pipes: [36]

This Article relies heavily on the book by Michael Barkun, A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America, yet it is grossly inconsistent with what the book actually says as shown by the Review by Daniel Pipes: [37]. I maintain that this article is substantially the Original research of one editor, supported by another. This article should and must conform to its sources, of which Michael Barkun's book is the main source. Currently it does not conform to that source - as is conclusively demonstrated by said Review. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Here's the lead of Pipes' Review:

“ Some people believe in the lost continent of Atlantis and in unidentified flying objects (UFOs). Others worry about an 18th-century secret society called the Bavarian Illuminati or a mythical Zionist-Occupied Government secretly running the United States. What if these disparate elements shared beliefs, joined forces, won a much larger audience, broke out of their intellectual and political ghetto, and became capable of challenging the premises of public life in the United States?

This is the frightening prospect, soberly presented by Michael Barkun in his important, just-published book, "A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America" (University of California Press).

”

The current article does not conform to the book, and is extremely complex to follow, and should be severely trimmed, particularly its un-necessarily excessive recital of prior conspiracy theories. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Barkun's thesis is that two groups of conspiracists had joined forces. That should be in the lede of this article. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Barkun is the only living person on this planet who has the authority to judge whether or not this article is grossly inconsistent with what the book (which you still haven't read) says. As everyone can see from his comments in a section above, Barkun himself has reviewed this article and judged it be sound and comprehensive! That being said, if you had actually read and understood the article in it's entirety, you would know that we do mention the fact that some groups of conspiracy theorists have joined forces. --Loremaster (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• PS1: Chip Berlet is a tertiary source - a journalist. He interviewed Michael Barkun, and that interview appears to be the source of his views. That being said, I'm not aware that Berlet contradicts Barkun. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• PS2: We cannot rely on your private emails with Michael Barkun. That's highly irregular at best. It opens a can of worms. Every editor may now ask us to trust him or her - because they had a direct conversation with the Secondary source. I'm extremely shocked by your demand that we should rely on your hearsay. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

  Re: PS1. That's wrong. Berlet is a secondary source.

  Re: PS2. True. However, he's editing the article based on Barkun's E-mail, but using only sources previously discussed:

  — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply: PS1 may be an academic issue since the two (2) do not disagree substantially. And if they do, the source at issue is an interview by Berlet of Barkun. So more weight ought to be given to Barkun's book.

Reply: PS2: Loremaster is certainly free to correspond with Barkun by Email, and accept his advice. However, we should not have to rely on Loremaster's word that the article is OK according to Barkun. That should never be allowed at Wikipedia. It reminds me of the excuse in elementary school: "The dog ate my homework." "Oh, OK, so your excused"? Let Loremaster invite Barkun to edit this article. If he does, and Barkun accepts, he'll also need to conform to Wiki rules - and rely on published sources - even his own.

--Ludvikus (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

PS1. Why should more weight be given to your (or a reviewer's) interpretation of Barkun's book than to an interview with Barkun? (You're not correctly quoting or quasi-quoting the book; Loremaster is.)

PS2. Barkun would probably not be permitted to edit this article, as his book is a principle source. Please read WP:COI.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

1. I'm not sure why Ludvikus is bringing up Berlet in this discussion about Daniel Pipes' review of of Barkun's book. However, no one argued that Berlet contradicts Barkun or vice-versa. My point was simply that Berlet is a better source because he explicily uses the phrase "collectivist One World Government" while I don't remember if Barkun does.
2. I'm not saying we should rely on my reporting of the content of Berlet's email to one of my colleagues. However, it is enough for me alone to be confident that you don't know what you are talking about because what everyone should find highly irregular is an editor who confesses to not having read Barkun's book nor the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article in its entirey presuming that he has the knowledge and authority to judge whether or not this article is consistent with the thesis of the book.

--Loremaster (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"Dances with Devils"

• How Apocalyptic and Millennialist Themes :Influence Right Wing Scapegoating and Conspiracism

by Chip Berlet

Senior Analyst

Political Research Associates

This study originally appeared in the Fall 1998 issue of The Public Eye magazine.

Revised 4/15/99

Political Research Associates

1310 Broadway Street, Suite 202

Somerville, MA 02144

617.661.9313

http://www.publiceye.org [38]

Part One:

The Roots of the Apocalyptic Paradigm

An Overview of the Dynamics

"The approach of the year 2000 ... stimulated widespread discussion of apocalyptic fears and millennialist expectations. Often lost in the discussion is the important ongoing role that specific types of apocalyptic and millennialist thinking play in shaping the demonization, scapegoating, and conspiracism used by various right-wing political and social movements.1"

"A remarkable number of myths, metaphors, images, symbols, phrases, and icons in Western culture flow from Christian Biblical prophecies about apocalyptic confrontations and millennial transformation.2 The Bible's Book of Revelation contains warnings that the end of time is foreshadowed by a vast Satanic conspiracy involving high government officials who betray the decent and devout productive citizens, while sinful and subversive tools of the Devil gnaw away at society from below."

• Instead of hair-splitting with you, Arthur Rubin, here above is the source and reference that's supposed to support the article. Notice the two notions - Apocalypse and Millenialism. Why aren't these in our lead? The authority in the article explicitly emphasizes these as relevant to the NWO Conspiracy theory. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Could we emphasize the apocalyptic millenerian themes in New World Order conspiracism more in the body of the article? Sure. But if you had read the lead carefully, you would now that notion of millenialism has been in it for months ever since we started using Barkun as a reliable source... --Loremaster (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Berlet on NWO

• Here's exactly what your source says regarding NWO:

“ From Red Menace to New World Order

Apocalyptic millennialism provides a basic narrative within the US political right, claiming that the idealized society is thwarted by subversive conspiracies.13 During the 1980s and 1990s, the main demonized scapegoat of the US hard right shifted seamlessly from the communist Red Menace to international terrorists, sinful abortion providers, anti-family feminists, homosexual "special rights" activists, "pagan" environmentalists, liberal secular humanists and their "big government" allies, and globalists who plot on behalf of the New World Order. The relatively painless nature of the shift was due in part to the basic underlying apocalyptic paradigm, which fed the Cold War and the witch-hunts of the McCarthy period.14 To understand this dynamic requires stepping back a few paces to the roots of fundamentalist belief.

”

1. I think that the origin of the misreading whereby 1991 is not treated as the defining moment for the NWO CT. Going back to the 1980's is for understanding only. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
2. Apocalyptic millennialism might be a better title for this article, since it's closer to the major souce of this analysis, and is the expression actually used by the source. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

PS1: The focus should therefore be on the notion of the Apocalypse and upon Millennialism. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

PS2: Can everyone see now how WP:Original research has perverted the meaning and intent of the very source cited? --Ludvikus (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

PS3: It would seem that ("applied") Eschatology plays a role in understanding the subject of our article, according to our source. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

1. I am fully aware of what Berlet wrote on the subject of NWO. Nothing in the article contradicts what he said. On contrary, if you look at the Coup d'état and martial law section of the article, you will see that we paraphrase the paragraph you quoted quite well.
2. The year 1990 (specifically Bush's speech to Congress in 1990) as a defining moment for New World Order conspiracism is reflected in the fact that it is at the center of the History of the term section of the article. However, this moment must be given proper historical context to be fully understood. In other words, there is a history before 1990 that explains why conspiracy theorists reacted the way they did to Bush' speech.
3. I'm getting sick and tired of this obsession you have with renaming this article! If the term "New World Order" in conspiracy theory was not notable enough to deserve it's own article, the only thing that would make sense would be to redirect it to an article on a subject related to New World Order conspiracism such as the Conspiracy theory article. However, we all know that the term "New World Order" in conspiracy theory IS notable enough to deserve it's own article. That being said, no one is disputing that there are apocalyptic millenerian/millenial themes in New World Order conspiracism. However, it would be absurd to rename the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article Apocalypticism, Millenarianism or Millennialism since it should be obvious that these articles already exist and cover a topic that is far broader that New World Order conspiracism in the United States after 1990. But let's explore the logic of your argument: Would Internationalism be a better name for the New world order (politics) article simply because internationalist goals are behind the use of the term "new world order"? Would Antisemitism be a better name for the Zionist Occupation Government article simply because antisemitic beliefs fuel the use of the term "Zionist Occupation Government"? OF COURSE NOT! So please stop it with these convoluted proposals of renaming this article. You will never find support for them.
4. No one disputes that (Christian and secular) eschatology plays a role in understanding the subject of our article. This is why this article has been in Category:Eschatology for a long time now. But you would only know that if you had read the article till the very end...

--Loremaster (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Once more, I repeat, I'm not asking YOU to re-name the article. I'm asking that the article conform to it's name. That conformity should be clearly indicated in the lede. If it does not, the implication is that the rest of the article is junk - I will not wast my time reading junk - there's too much to read in the world as it is. At the same time, you repeatedly claim that all the issues of fact I raise are in fact presented in the body of the article. Good, so we agree on the facts. It's HOW you present these facts is at issue. You spent an awful amount of space summarizing the different Conspiracy theories about which we have distinct articles. These summaries I deduce must be defective. I know that because I've sampled one - the Protocols of the Elders of Zion - a Conspiracy theory upon which I'm an expert. The implication you seem to give is that you have a precise logical analysis how all of these fit together to form the NWO CT - that's what 90% of the article contains. If I want to know about WP's presentations of these, I'll go to the WP articles for those - not wast my time reading your summaries, which most likely are distortions of complex phenomena written by one editor - namely you. --Ludvikus (talk) 10:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact you have never been able to prove that these summaries are distortions, these summaries are necessary to explain the relation of some concepts, such as anti-Masonic conspiracy theories for example, to New World Order conspiracism. Furthermore, they are not summaries of other articles! They are summaries of what our reliable sources tell us on each of these conspiracy theories. By the way, despite its title, the Alien Invasion section is not a summary of the Alien invasion article since that article is not about conspiracy theories involving aliens. Therefore, it is not appropriate to add a {{main|alien invasion}} tag in that section. The same goes for the New Age section, the End Time section and the Brave New World section. That being said, why do I continue to engage in discussion someone who refuse to read the entire article before critiquing it? --Loremaster (talk) 12:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Besides the dishonesty - regarding the fact that I've in fact influenced the content of this Article substantially for the better - the opening paragraph is so disgusting in its pretentious and pompous verbosity that I cannot bear to read beyond it. Unless it is severely trimmed, any one with any intellectual sophistication and scholarly background must puke when reading it. It is unfortunate that you are not able to see that. The rest I could barely skim through without throwing up from the unbearable recollection of the leading and opening paragraph. I can only imagine that Michael Barkun was being extremely kind - in order not to break a possibly fragile ego - in his alleged critique of it. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that a lead section should be comprehensive which usually entails 3 solid paragraphs, anyone who is familiar with conspiracy theories in general and New World Order conspiracism in particular knows that the second paragraph (which was not originally written by me but that I have tweaked over the past year) is fair and accurate. I obviously will not take seriously criticism of "verbosity" from someone who is such as a bad writer and editor. Lastly, the entire third paragraph of the lead is a quote/paraphrase of Barkun's own words so the notion that he doesn't really like it is ridiculous! Ludvikus, stop embarrassing yourself... --Loremaster (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Domhoff on conspiracy theories

This is an extremely useful specific reference relevant to this article: There Are No Conspiracies by G. William Domhoff [39]. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Here's Domhoff's lede:

“ Many people seem to believe that America is ruled from behind the scenes by a conspiratorial elite with secret desires, i.e., by a small secretive group that wants to change the government system or put the country under the control of a world government. In the past, the conspirators were usually said to be secret Communist sympathizers who were intent upon bringing the United States under a common world government with the Soviet Union, but the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 undercut that theory. So most conspiratorial theorists changed their focus to the United Nations as the likely controlling force in a "new world order," an idea which is undermined by the powerlessness of the United Nations and the unwillingness of even moderates with the American power structure to give it anything but a limited role. ”

In my opinion, that's an excellent analysis by a sociology professor at UCSC. But currently this article obscures this analysis. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ludvikus, I don't want to personally attack you but this is another example of why I think you are a problem and that I don't your opinion seriously. If you actually had read the Alleged conspirators section of the article, you would know that we actually quote this entire passage. It even used to be in the Lead until Batvette and other contributors made me move it to the Alleged conspirators section. SO CAN YOU PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO READ AND UNDERSTAND THE ENTIRE ARTICLE BEFORE CRITIQUING IT? --Loremaster (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I will NOT do any of that because it's the lede that has the heaviest weight. And the current lede tells me that the article stinks of rotten eggs. If you don't fix the lede, no one should bother with the rest of the article. The lead is the way of telling you whether what follows is garbage or not. So fix the lede to conform to the body. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Except for conspiracy theorists who hate the fact that the lead is critical of New World Order conspiracism, you are the ONLY person who thinks the lead is bad. And since you confess to not having read the article in its entirety, no one can nor should take seriously your opinion of the lead since it is a summary of the the article. --Loremaster (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, you're the ONLY person who thinks it's great - could it be because people are afraid to contradict you? After all, they can read here how you deal with a WP:Good faith attempt to improve this article? --Ludvikus (talk) 16:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I think the lede could be improved; perhaps a summary of the quote would be helpful, although I doubt that Ludvikus would agree to a sensible summary, as he's misinterpreted that, as well as the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Arthur, I'm not opposed to adding a summary of the Domhoff quote in the Lead section but, as you can see from discussions in Archive 3, it was a major dispute that drove the Domhoff quote from the Lead section to the Alleged conspirators section. Do we really want to open that can of worms again? --Loremaster (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ludvikus, the version of the lead that existed before you arrived with your grand proposals to revamp the entire article was the result of a consensus reached after many debates between me and other contributors who had problems with the previous version I had written as well as recommendations that came from the peer review. So the notion that people are afraid to contradict me is proven false by the very process that produced the pre-Ludvikus version of the lead. --Loremaster (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Can you guys please stop talking about me, and focus on the Article? On the other hand, at the moment only the tree of us are in the room. Nevertheless, besides Arthur's prediction about my future views, he does concede that the lead could improve. Why isn't it enough to say in the lede that this article is about one, or several conspiracy theory/conspiracy theories? Notice that I cannot even get you guys to be clear about the number of theories involved in this article: The Title is in the Singular, but the Content is Plural (several are discussed). --Ludvikus (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ludvikus: compare New_world_order_(politics). That is, the term in the context of politics. Here, you have the term in the context of conspiracy theory. Not "a" conspiracy theory, but a term in a specific context, entailing certain assumptions, and concrete variations. 78.54.232.178 (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. What's the relation between the two - according to you? --Ludvikus (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know more about your generalization: "a term in a specific context, entailing certain assumptions, and concrete variations." --Ludvikus (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

User:78.54.232.178 is right. Off-topic: I encourage him or her to create a user account and help us with this article. We need more rational people like him or her around. --Loremaster (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

But what we don't need is for you to be judging who is - and who is not - rational at Wikipedia. --Ludvikus (talk) 10:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You two are bickering like an old couple. You guys need a reboot. 87.166.63.87 (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, I suggest Ludvikus takes a break from editing this article long enough for him to read Barkun's book and essays from other academics who have studied New World Order conspiracism as well as seek the tutoring of an administrator in order to better understand Wikipedia guidelines relevant to the disputes we are constantly having over this article. Is this unreasonable of me to ask? --Loremaster (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Reasons to block Ludvikus

The more you persist in trying to damage this article with convoluted proposals, the more I'm convinced that we shoud take steps to block you from Wikipedia. --Loremaster (talk) 20:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

A Content dispute is merely that - it cannot be the ground for a Block. Furthermore, it may be hard to believe, but the article has improved significantly since I've arrived - even if it might be on it's way to the morgue where it might ultimately belong if it reverses the course I've set for it, despite the struggle in opposition of the one who feels he owns this article. But if anyone should be Blocked - perhaps at least for 24 hours, it's the editor who finds it impossible to make an argument without a Personal Attack, or a Threat of Blockage. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

A content dispute is not the reason why I want you blocked. You should be blocked from Wikipedia because you insist on revamping articles despite that fact that you 1) are ignorant of the subject of articles you take interst in, 2) don't know or understand basic Wikipedia guidelines, 3) are an extremely bad editor, and, most important of all, 4) can't be reasoned with. That being said, as I've told you before, I'm not going to deny that some of your minor proposed changes to the article were good. However, I've only acted on them because they were about issues with the article that I was already aware of and planning on eventually resolving because I'm perpetually working on improving the article since December 11th, 2008. The problem is that you often frame these good proposals with the most convoluted logic. Furthermore, your major proposed changes to the article have all been and will continue to be soundly rejected. --Loremaster (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

STOP: WP:No personal attacks --Ludvikus (talk) 12:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I was explaining to you the reason why you should be blocked. How can that not involved personal attacks? --Loremaster (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This Talk page is NOT about me. It's purpose is given by it's title: "Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory)," by it's Section title: "Michael Barkun's review of the article!" This is not the place to discuss why you should be Blocked. So STOP your Disruption and Insulting Provocations. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You brought it on yourself... That being said, I'm not being disruptive since my "insulting provocations" are intended to alert people to your own disruptiveness. --Loremaster (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Similarly , I'd like to remind all Wikipedia editors that I'm extremely provoked to engage in a Personal Attack on User:Loremaster. However, WP:Personal attacks prohibits that. So what I am permit to do is remind all readers of the fallacy of an ad hominem argument. When you cannot win an argument, you say something about your opponent hoping that that would sway your listener in your favor. Unfortunately, that works too often in the real world. But nif you are logical, my fellow Wikipedia readers and editors, you will not listen to any of the negative things that User:Loremaster says about me, and focus on my arguments and hers/his arguments as well. At the same time, you ought to be reminded that the one who attacks the messenger, is often the one in the weak position. You should think, dear reader, it's more likely that User:Loremaster is wrong because he/she is Personally Attacking his/her opponent. Also, think about the insult to which you are submitted. Loremaster says that you need to be protected from my arguments. I'm being discredited by Loremaster's Personal Attacks because he/she maintains that my arguments might sway you in my favor. Do you really need to be protected from by arguments by the Personal Attacks of User:Loremaster? --Ludvikus (talk) 11:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't deny that I have repeteadly personally attacked you. Although I feel all these personal attacks were justified, I do apologize for resorting to them. That being said, I am increasingly realizing that I don't need to personally attack you anymore since your own arguments expose your ignorance and convoluted thinking. --Loremaster (talk) 12:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Image Dispute

Image suggestions

Instead of discussing what images should be removed, perhaps it would be more constructive to discuss what images I could imagine being appropriate for this article. Here's what I see, given a quick scan of the article content:

• The cover of H. G. Wells' book, The New World Order, (preferably the first edition cover, although I haven't been able to find an image confirmed as the first edition) which cemented the usage of the term by conspiracy theorists. Naturally, the image should also be added to the book's own article.
• The cover of Pat Robertson's book The New World Order, demonstrates the lasting power of the phrase, and the invoking of it for alternative theories with similar ramifications.
• The Georgia Guidestones, after they were defaced with anti-NWO sentiments in 2008. This image would confirm the association between the guidestones and NWO conspiracy theories.
• (as I mentioned before) any protest signs that invoke the phrase "New World Order". I've seen half a dozen images from simple Google searches. All that needs to be done is find a image that's licensed to allow reuse and possibly modification, and to blur or crop out any faces in order to conform to WP Policy.

If anyone else has good ideas for images that they just haven't been able to find/upload, I'd love to see them added here, so they may be discussed and/or so that other editors might keep an eye out for them. -Verdatum (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Those are all good ideas. If you have the time, please upload those images and add them to the article. --Loremaster (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

But I did exactly that, but you reverted. Why? --Ludvikus (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Correction: It was User: Arthur Rubin who just deleted the image: [40]. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's the reason he gave in the Diff.: "image is a fair use violation unless used in an article about the book; this SECTION is not about the book." --Ludvikus (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If that's so, Arthur Rubin, (regarding copyright law), why don't simply move the image to the Section about the book? --Ludvikus (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There isn't consensus that a section about a book requires the image in order to identify the book, per WP:NFCC#8. It's been established that an article about a book may require such an image (but not more than one of the book has more than one edition); there is also consensus that an album cover may not be used in an article about a musician. But this section (#End times) only uses the book as an example, so it's not even a section about the book. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Arthur has a point here. The clincher quote for me was "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)."

On the other hand, at least one edition of H.G. Well's work is merely the title in a common font, and as such, cannot be copyrighted. -Verdatum (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The point may be academic. I've come to the conclusion that this article is substantially about the book of the same title whose image I wished posted here. So I think the discussion should continue below from now on. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Verdatum, about pictures of protest signs. Do graffiti count as well? This image has some profanity, but I know the person who took it and can ask her if Wikipedia may use it: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2191/3535237745_f41341c9d6.jpg 92.228.153.148 (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this image is good enough. A better one would be of a sign at an anti-NWO protest organized by Alex Jones. --Loremaster (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing the image up for discussion, but I must agree with Loremaster. The image doesn't really provide context or add to the article IMO. If the vandalism was discussed in a major newspaper that would be another matter. -Verdatum (talk) 04:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It's also a question of WP:Notability. For example: Did you go write that on the all, photograph it, and post it her? (I'm only using this description as an example). Do you understand my objection? --Ludvikus (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not a question of WP:Notability, because notability does not govern content of an article (WP:NNC). WP:N only proscribes whether or not an article deserves to exist for a topic, it has nothing to do with images. -Verdatum (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about the Notability of a stranger drawing graffiti on the wall of a building, photographing it, and then uploading it onto Wikipedia for use in an Article. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Shepard Fairey is a contemporary artist, graphic designer, and illustrator whose work became more widely known in the 2008 U.S. presidential election, specifically his Barack Obama "HOPE" poster. The Institute of Contemporary Art, Boston calls him one of today's best known and most influential street artists. His work is included in the collections at The Smithsonian, the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, the Museum of Modern Art in New York, and the Victoria and Albert Museum in London. With that said, some of his images have an explicit anti-NWO theme such as this one: Hostile Takeover: New World Order. What do you guys think of adding some of Fairey's images? --Loremaster (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a beautiful image! But how could you get around his copyright? Get his explicit permission? I remember reading about him and his images of Obama. He's extremely talented. Hope you could use this attractive image. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to his Obey Giant gallery if you like his images. If the image isn't fair use, we'll have to contact Fairey to get his explicit permission. We could also ask him to create a new image just for the article. :) --Loremaster (talk) 00:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Anything would be better than the image we have now. The focus should be Bush I, not Bush II. It's the first Bush who brought the International Relations issue of "new world order" notion into the discourse of United States politics on March 6, 1991, with his speech before Congress. The current offending logo appears merely like a public relations fiasco in contrast. This logo is a distraction from the facts involving already a highly complex area. And it's misleading by giving inadvertent attention to a defunct agency - un-necessarily provoking conspiracists. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As I've explained to you in discussions that were archived, several mainstream academics and journalists who have written on the subject of conspiracism have used the iconic image of the eye and pyramid on the cover of their books and magazines. So it makes sense that we do the same. The fact that a defunct U.S. agency abandonned their logo because New World Order conspiracy theorists made a big fuss about it is extremely relevant to an encyclopedic article on the New World Order conspiracism. I would even argue that it is the perfect image. Therefore, I will fight any attempt to remove the IAO image from this article. That being said, when I proposed adding an image by Shepard Fairey, I wasn't suggesting that it should replace the IAO image. I was proposing it as a second image that could be placed somewhere in the body of the article. --Loremaster (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Substantive contributions to the subject of the article do not belong in an image's caption. The description of events in 2002 and thereafter, pertaining to the Seal of a defunct USA agency merit inclusion in the article. The techniques of subtle propaganda do not belong at Wikipedia. The event described was minor or major. Whether the protest of conspiracists was notable or not is an issue to be considered. We have an article on the defunct agency. What we say about said agency should conform to that article. Why the logo was abandoned is an issue of fact which requires exact citation. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Except for that non-sensical claim of propaganda, you make a logical argument for once. I will work on including information about the IAO in the Mass surveillance section of the article. --Loremaster (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Loremaster (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Why must you interject your inappropriate remark: "you make a logical argument for once"? Is it because only the arguments you accept are "logical"? Is it impossible for you, Loremaster to restrain yourself? Also, calling something "nonsensical" is useless - it doesn't explain how it is nonsensical. Therefore, the only conclusion available is that the presentation was insufficient for someone in your shoes to understand. Propaganda includes delivering messages subtly and unconsciously. In the United States it is the Science of Advertising. For example, during Superbowl companies spend a fortune of their advertising revenue to carry their commercial with images of the logo and product. This article does the same with the Seal of the defunct USA agency. The association of a conspiracy theory with the agency whose seal it is played an extremely small, minuscule role in history. Yet buy putting it at the top and opening of the article makes you, User:Loremaster like a conspiracy crank - because you insist on making readers associate the NWO conspiracy with the demise of the agency, whereas the agency collapsed because it went too far in its ambitions to protect the United States from possible future 9-11 . --Ludvikus (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

So, according your flawed logic, do Barkun and other writers intentionally make readers uncritically associate the "Eye of Providence" symbol on the reverse side of the Great Seal of the United States with conspiracy theories when they choose to display this symbol on the cover of their books, magazines and magazines which are critical of conspiracism? Do you have so little faith in the intelligence of readers that you don't think they already know or will eventually understand why this symbol is MISinterpreted by conspiracy theorists? Regardless of your answer, any rational observer of this article knows that I've been improving and expanding it since December 2008 to present the topic of New World Order conspiracism from a critical yet neutral perspective as well as fighting with conspiracy theorists who want to edit this article to promote their pet conspiracy theory uncritically. So it is absurd to suggest that I might be a "conspiracy crank" because I insist on using and critically contextualizing the IAO logo that sources confirm was misinterpreted by conspiracy theorists as a brazen display by the New World Order conspiracy. I therefore consider this issue settled and I'm moving on. --Loremaster (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• You're forgetting, or neglecting, the Consensus, which was that the Image might be improved. The image of the "eye" in the "pyramid" is All American: it was adopted in 1780 for the back of the Great Seal of the United States. It is not the all-seeing eye of Freemasonry. So it's a much better image for this article than the relatively obscure 2002 Seal of a defunct USA agency, which was closed down because it was over-zealous in it's defense against possibly new 9-11 like attacks by terrorist sleeper cells. There's nothing in the article, or in history to indicate that the Seal played anything but a minuscule role in the history of the agency. One of your 3 footnotes on your chosen image is to a non-notable Web organization which apparently believes (mistakenly) that this symbolism is related to the Masons. If you research the Mason's history you will find that the two (USA & Masons) were independent of each other in their choices of this symbolism. Therefore, your image goes, and the image on the Great Seal of the United States replaces it. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No. The consensus was that, rather than removing the IAO image from the lead, we should focus on adding new images to the body of the article. That being said, I'm no longer disussing this specific issue with you since you can't be reasoned with so I consider the matter closed. --Loremaster (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I am fully aware of the fact that the eye and pyramid on the back of the Great Seal of the United States is not the all-seeing eye of Freemansonry. The point obviously is that conspiracy theorists believe that it is. Furthermore, NO ONE is arguing that that DARPA'S Information Awareness Office was closed down because of its logo. You are perfectly correct in arguing that they were closed down because they were believed to be overreaching. However, what you fail to understand is that DARPA got rid of the logo in part because of how conspiracy theorists MISinterpret the eye and pyramid as the all-seeing eye of Freemansonry and the Illuminati. This is a totally seperate issue from the reason why the IAO was closed down. Do you understand now? --Loremaster (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The Eye of Providence

Eye of Providence in a Jacopo Pontormo (1494 — 1557) painting

Great Seal of the United States, "1776" (Obverse)

It's seems an editor (I'm not saying who) has confused the Eye of Providence of the Great Seal of the United States with the All-seeing eye of Freemasonry. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As the article's third sources clearly explains, there is no all-seeing eye in Freemasonry. Only conspiracy theorists think there is. That being said, although I will continue reverting your edits in order to restore the IAO image, if you insist on adding an image of the Great Seal of the United States in this article, you need to present it with a caption that provides a justification and critical contextualization by saying something like "Conspiracy theorists misinterpret the “eye and pyramid” as the Masonic symbol of the Illuminati, an 18th-century secret society they believe continues to exist and is plotting on behalf of a New World Order". Otherwise, you are guilty of doing exactly what you've been accusing me of for weeks now! --Loremaster (talk) 04:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Articles other than yours, I do read to the end. You seem not to have reached 1797:

    The first "official" use and definition of the all-seeing eye as a masonic symbol
    seems to have come in 1797
    with The Freemasons Monitor of Thomas Smith Webb — 14 years after Congress adopted the design for the Seal:
    "...and although our thoughts, words and actions, may be hidden from the eyes of man
    yet that All-Seeing Eye, whom the Sun Moon and Stars obey, and under whose watchful care even comets perform their stupendous revolutions,
    pervades the inmost recesses of the human heart, and will reward us according to our merits."5

• But everyone can make a mistake. Notice that I do not take this opportunity to launch a Personal Attack on you. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As the source explains, it was a mistake on Thomas Smith Webb's part to think that the all-seeing eye in the Great Seal was a Masonic symbol. If you carefully read and understand the source, it clearly explains why the all-seeing eye is not a Masonic symbol. --Loremaster (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• You're mistaken. Read this other Direct Quote of a Masonic source [41]:

    The Great Seal and Masonic symbolism grew out of the same cultural milieu.
    While the all-seeing eye had been popularized in Masonic designs of the late eighteenth century,
    it did not achieve any sort of official recognition until Webb's 1797 Monitor.
    Whatever status the symbol may have had during the design of the Great Seal,
    it was not adopted or approved or endorsed by any Grand Lodge.
    
    The seal's Eye of Providence and the Mason's All Seeing Eye each express Divine Omnipotence,
    but they are parallel uses of a shared icon, not a single symbol.

• What say you to this fact? --Ludvikus (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected only the specific claim that Freemasonry uses the all-seeing eye. However, my real point (which is supported by your own source) is that the eye in the pyramid is not nor has it ever been a Masonic symbol. That being said, so what? What's the relevance of this fact to our debate about which image should and should not be added to the article? There is none. --Loremaster (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I am fully aware of the fact that the eye and pyramid on the back of the Great Seal of the United States is not the all-seeing eye of Freemansonry. The point obviously is that conspiracy theorists believe that it is. Furthermore, as I explained in a section above, NO ONE is arguing that that DARPA's Information Awareness Office was closed down because of its logo. You are perfectly correct in arguing that they were closed down because they were believed to be overreaching. However, what you fail to understand is that DARPA got rid of the logo in part because of how conspiracy theorists MISinterpret the eye and pyramid as the all-seeing eye of Freemansonry and the Illuminati. This is a totally seperate issue from the reason why the IAO was closed down. Do you understand now? --Loremaster (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If that's true, give me an exact citation showing that that's why the agency got rid of the seal. At the moment you've only provide an outside link to obscure/non-notable conspiracist organization which in 2004 (as I recollect) complaint about the alleged implications of the seal. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

In the article itself, we are not making the claim that DARPA got rid of the logo because of conspiracy theorists. We simply make the claim that conspiracy theorists were inflamed by it and how they interpret it. The Illuminati Conspiracy Archive is a popular conspiracist website which does serve as a good primary source to support this claim. According to Wikipedia guidelines, primary sources may be used to support content in an article. --Loremaster (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation here. I think you're now engaged in Original Research. You are not producing a reliable Secondary Source that says something about the alleged Masonic nature of the Seal. You are actually placing yourself in the role of the secondary source by researching the Primary Source web site. And I have no idea how notable that Primary Source is - so even if you were allowed to do your original research, you couldn't adopt its finding to include same in this article. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding notability, notice that we do not have an article on the Illuminati Conspiracy Archive. That's not conclusive, but it's somewhat indicative of this site's non-notability. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This primary source is not being used to support the notability of the IAO image. It is only being used to support content, which is perfectly consistant with Wikipedia guidelines. In other words, if a conspiracy theorist says X, it is perfectly acceptable to use his essay (even if it is not a reliable source in other contexts) to support the claim that conspiracy theorist said X. By the way, just because someone hasn't gotten around to making an article for a subject, it doesn't automatically mean it is not notable. --Loremaster (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The Freemasons definitely do use the all seeing eye as an emblem. However, they adopted it several years AFTER it was adopted by Congress for use in the Great Seal. Both the Freemasons and Congress chose it because it was a common (since at least the Renaissance) emblem for God (and, when enclosed in a triangle, an explicitly Christian emblem standing for the Trinity.) Blueboar (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. And the connection between the triangle (pyramid too has triangles) and the Trinity is very interesting. I wonder if Secretary Charles Thompson - of the Continental Congress - was aware of that. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The Issue

[[:File:OneDollar NovusOrdoSeclorum.png|thumb|right|200px|Eye of Providence on the Dollar Bill (USA with Motto: Novus Ordo Seclorum)]]

The Issue here is which image is more appropriate for the article. By default you agree that mine is. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The article can and should have more than one image. I think the IAO image is the perfect image for the Lead for reasons I have explained repeteadly. I have no problem with you adding an image of the Great Seal of the United States in the Freemasonry section of the article as long as it contains a proper caption that explains it's relevance to New World Order conspiracism like the one I suggested to in another discussion. --Loremaster (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess I didn't say the obvious. It should be clear to everyone that the Seal of the Defunct agency you love so much is merely the unfortunate adaptation of the Great Seal of the United States as it also appears on the dollar bill. So why give the conspiracists what they want? Put the Great Seal of the United States at the top of the article, giving my country (the USA) the dignity it deserves (as a byproduct. And put the defunct agency, together with the Dollar Bill somewhere below (the defunct agency seal should be below the Dollar Bill Seal). That would keep things in their historical chronological order. Give me a couple of moments & I'll get you the Dollar Bill seal. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

We are obviously not giving conspiracy theorists want they want when we present the IAO image with a critical caption. Why do think anonymous editors keep vandalizing the caption? As for the notion that putting the Great Seal of the United States at the top of the article would give it the dignity it deserves, that simply doesn't make any sense according to your own logic! This article is about paranoid conspiracy theories about the New World Order. Why would you want your cherished seal associated with this especially if it is presented without a critical caption? This is absolutely absurd! --Loremaster (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't. The United States of America is a known entity. And you love it or leave it - so to speak. And the Dollar Bill of the United States is also a known entity. So either you're a hopeless Conspiracist - to whom nothing said will have a bearing, or you're a relatively rational person who knows that nothing on earth is perfect - but among the blind, the one-eyed man is king. So the United States is a Great place - to be in, and to imitate. On the other hand, that unknown Seal of a Defunct USA agency - how can someone who doesn't know a thing about it, deny the conspiracist's argument? Anyway - what is the NWO CR - if it's not an attack on the integrity of the United States of America? The Conspracists say that the country is run by secret, powerful, individuals. So they order our President about, right? Anyway, I think you're not serious about your questions. But you already conceded that you'll place the Seal in the appropriate place. So do that - as you yourself suggested. I've placed an accurate Caption on the article already. I will not post the USA Seal myself because User:Arthur Rubin has Removed it twice - and I do not wish to violate the spirit of the 3RR rule/prohibition. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've had enough of this circus! I'm no longer engaging you in debate until I know the verdict on the request to get you banned from Wikipedia. --Loremaster (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As User:Verdatum recommended, and you, User:Loremaster concurred, here to the right I'm providing the image of the Eye of Providence within the pyramid that occurs on the Reverse of all American dollar bills. It's also ideal to use because it bears the Motto in Latin: "Novus Ordo Seclorum" which conspirasicts often allegedly mistranslate as "New World Order." --Ludvikus (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to include an image of the Great Seal (either on its own or as taken from the dollar). If you read the quite detailed article on the Great Seal of the United States, we know the derivation of each element of the Seal, including both the eye and the motto. It has nothing to do with any "New World Order", nor a conspiracy. They say a picture is worth a thousand words... To include an image of it gives undue weight to a Fringe idea.

The Simple fact is: conspiracy theorists do not know latin (and thus mistranslate the motto), and do not know that the Eye of Providence was a common Christian emblem (and explicitly a Trinitarian emblem) since at least the Renaissance. The Great Seal neither was nor is some sort of code "proving" that a conspiracy exists.

To be honest, I would say the same about the image of the IAO seal... including it in this article gives undue weight to the theory that there is some sort of connection. Perhaps it would be best for this article to simply not have any image. Blueboar (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you 99%. The only difference (perhaps) is in the fact that the Dollar, and the Great Seal, have long both been objects of scorn by Conspiracists and Anti-Masons. Therefore the 2002 Seal is trivial in comparison. But I agree with you - lets not have ANY image. That's a great compromise - in my view. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly reject such a compromise. Although I appreciate Blueboar's input, he is wrong for several reasons:

1. Wikipedia's criteria for a good article and featured article demands that the topic of an article is illustrated, if possible, by images that follow the image use policy and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, brief and useful alt text when feasible, and acceptable copyright status.
2. The inclusion of an image only gives undue weight to a fringe theory IF the caption fails to critically contextualize it, and 2) there are no reliable sources by scholars and journalists who have found that this fringe theory is worth documenting.
3. Every reasonable well-informed person knows that the eye and pyramid has in fact no relation to a New World Order conspiracy. It almost goes without saying! However, it is a fact that a great many conspiracy theorists believe that it does. Several scholars and journalists have found it worthwhile to document this fact. Many of them include images of the eye and pyramid in the body of their articles and even on the cover of their books and magazines. It would be ridiculous to argue that these scholars and journalists are giving undue weight to a fringe theory!
4. I therefore strongly support the inclusion of the Great Seal of the United States, the United States one-dollar bill and the IAO image as long as as they properly contextualized.

--Loremaster (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

So we can compromise? I'm a bit surprised. Are you sure you are willing to accept this? You are aware that two of the three images have been produced by - so to speak - inadequately informed me? --Ludvikus (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Since I am sick and tired of this dispute, the only compromise I am willing to make is moving the IAO image to the Mass Surveillance section and adding the reverse side of the Great Seal of the United Stated with a critically contextualizing caption. --Loremaster (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That's very nice of you. And if you wish you could also have somewhere below that an image from the Dollar Bill. These are great images because they show how common and all-American these symbols really are. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll work on it in the next few hours and/or days. --Loremaster (talk) 22:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

First sentence of the lead section

"In conspiracy theory, the term “New World Order” or “NWO” refers to the emergence of a bureaucratic collectivist one-world government.[4]"

Loremaster, you've reverted editing of the above 1st sentence at least twice in attempts to improve it. You give, by footnote "4", Michael Barkun as your reference. Kindly provide the exact page number(s) where the passage(s) is/are which justifies you insistence that it is "in" CT that the term NWO refers to the "emergence of a bureaucratic collectivist one-world government." --Ludvikus (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The context doesn't need to be in Barkun. Your statements, "[a] conspiracy theory", would need to be in a source, in order for it to be in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

So in other words, (a) this article is a study of several conspiracy theories, right? And if so, (b) the word "theory" should be changed to "theories" in this article title, right? --Ludvikus (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you keep bringing up this issue since your proposal to rename and move this article to New World Order (conspiracy theories) was soundly rejected by several contributors to this talk page based on Wikipedia guidelines. Don't you remember the conclusion of the debate in the archived Requested move section of this talk page? That being said, the first sentence of the Lead has been edited so much that I think Berlet would be a better source. --Loremaster (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a million for your politeness. I'm grateful for that. My answer to your first question is that the article should conform to the result of the prior determination. It was effectively decided that this article is about a Singular event. Therefore the lead should conform to that. The article is about "a" Conspiracy theory, or, as User:Arthur Rubin says, "a type of " Conspiracy theory. But the both of you are resisting my attempts to conform the lede to the determination of said Consensus. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* The consensus was against renaming and moving this article so I'm not sure what you are talking about and, frankly, I don't care. The name of this article will not change. Period. --Loremaster (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue I've been raising is NOT changing the Name (since that's been decided), but Conforming the Article to it's Singular name. This article is about a Singular phenomena - "a" conspiracy theory. So the lead should indicate that. However, it appears to be a study, from a Political science, and Sociology, points of view of what a list of conspiracy theories have in common. There's inadequate historical presentation of what this phenomena is - an apocalyptic and millennial conspiratorial perspective which begins in 1991 in partial response to first Bush's speech before both a joint sessions of Congress in which he invoke the notion of a New World Order. That historical fact, reported by the sources, must be in the lead. It is this which gives our article its name. --Ludvikus (talk) 10:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is not about a singular phenonemon. It is about New World Order conspiracism which takes many forms and preceded Bush's speech. The history of the term section of the article provides the historical presentation you demand. Can this section be further improved? Sure. But to talk as if the article doesn't currently have a historical presentation which treats 1990 as a pivotal moment is obviously absurd. --Loremaster (talk) 12:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

To Ludvikus: Please study our (Wikipedia) disambiguation and naming guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals). Furthermore, Foo (bar) means "Foo" in (the context) "bar", so the lede clause is exactly what is normally covered by a disambiguator. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Studying what you recommend, Arthur, will not solve the riddle in the name of the Article. It's not the name I'm concerned with, it's the ambiguity in the name as selected. The lede begins (I'm counting the "hat note") with "In conspiracy theory ...." That's horribly ambiguous. The usage (in this context) suggests that there's a "theory of conspiracies." Whereas the practice is to treat "conspiracy theory" as a term of disparagement. To call a phenomena a "conspiracy theory" is to use a pejorative against it. So why am I having such an extremely difficult time in getting you guys (the both of you) to drop the word "In"? We have, "In science..." "in medicine..." "In mathematics." But not "In superstition...," "In murder ...," "In rape ...." So why is it not possible to open the lede with a sentence like, "The conspiracy theory (or "theories" if you think there are more than one) which is called NWO ...? --Ludvikus (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not appropriate to do so, because it would reduce the complexity (or multiple facets) of the phenomenon in the very first sentence and would be irresponsibly simplistic and incorrect, as well as open to the very criticism you appear to be raising here. The wording may indeed be up for improvement, I think you do have a point there, but your proposals would misrepresent the content of the article to follow. That is, then the lead really would be a disaster. 87.166.63.87 (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That's problem with Ludvikus. He focuses on something about the article that could be legitimately improved but not only proposes changes that would damage the article but proposes them with the most convoluted logic. That being said, several writers do use the expression "conspiracy theory" more or less in the sense of "theory of conspiracies". --Loremaster (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem with User:Loremaster is that she/he cannot make an observation about an editor he/she disagrees with without the convoluted logic of throughing in a Personal Attack as in the above. That should make everyone suspicious of everything it has to say. No give me the citations to writers use who use the expression in the sense of a "theory of conspiracies." At lease now we're getting to the issue that I wish to address. You claim that there are such writers. Are they scholars who publish in peer-reviewed journals? Or are they conspiracists? I want to have as many citations of them as possible. In fact - why don't we have the following WP article: Theory of conspiracies?

--Ludvikus (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

For example, here is a description of Andrew Strombeck's essay Whose Conspiracy Theory? in Postmodern Culture - Volume 15, Number 2, January 2005:

“ In the post-9/11 world, cultural paranoia and its number-one star, conspiracy theory, have reemerged with a vigor unseen since their heyday in the fifties. The Bush Administration's anti-terrorism rhetoric could be characterized as a form of conspiracy theory, epitomized by Bush's use of "Axis of Evil" to conflate the undeniably different Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. On the left, a relentless stream of conspiracy-minded notions (some, of course, with a basis in truth) have been associated with the Administration, from a secret plan to cancel the 2004 elections to the idea of an "October Surprise" featuring the reappearance of an always-already captured Osama Bin Laden to the now infamous "Bush bulge." Such an atmosphere heightens the need for a critical evaluation of conspiracy theory like Peter Knight's Conspiracy Culture: From Kennedy to the X-Files. (A note on terminology: in this essay, "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy culture" refer to thinking about actual conspiracies; "conspiracy theory criticism" refers to second-level thinking about conspiracy theory.) Knight, a lecturer in American Studies at the University of Manchester, makes a compelling case for the emergence of a widespread "conspiracy culture" in the post-Kennedy era, using evidence from literature... ”

--Loremaster (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead

[Loremaster,] your abstract knowledge of WP theory is inconsistent with your practice of it. (1) The lead should tell us how and why the 1918 pollitical/international relations notion of a NWO came to be, after 1991 to be associated with a conspiracy theory. You probably are not fully aware that the latter year was 9 years short of the Second Millennium after the time of Jesus Christ, so you seem to tend to underplay the religious sensibilities of subscribers to fundamentalism, since you mission is clearly not neutral, but intent on preaching to them your self-professed rationalism and skepticism. The latter is not what Wikipedia demands of editors. You fail to recognize - and account for - the religious aspects of this phenomena. That's why you don't bother with the "stub" regarding The New World Order (Robertson). --Ludvikus (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The lead used to discuss and contrast the definition of the term "new world order" in international relations theory with the definition of the term "new world order" in conspiracy theory but recommendations from peer review convinced me to delete such content. I've come to the conclusion that it is more appropriate to go into such details in the History of term section of the article since the Lead section should be more a general overview of the article. I'm not sure on what source you base your weird claims about 1991 but, even if they were accurate, I think they should also be in the History of the term section of the article. That being said, the third paragraph does mention apocalyptic millenerianism so your claim that we underplay the religious dimension is false. As for the The New World Order (Robertson) article stub, I don't bother with it because 1) I haven't read the book so I don't feel qualified to write an article on it, and 2) I'm focused on improving the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article based on reliable sources such as scholars who have read the book. --Loremaster (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

On Batvette

User:Batvette is a conspiracy theorist who have often clashed with on this talk page. I don't take anything he says seriously. --Loremaster (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry you must have the wrong article. The "distort someone's position on an issue to discredit their person and assume your opinion of them gives added weight as an editor" article is somewhere else. I gave a reason for my support, if you cannot address that save your drivel for someone else. Your rude demeanor is wholly unwikilike and many people have disagreements with your "consensus" yet you immediately archive their comments to hide them.Batvette (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Not that I agree with your right to sit in judgment about that, I've just looked for a DIFF regarding User:Batvette - but couldn't find any. Would you please give me just ONE diff showing why you refuse to listen to anything Batvette has to say?

--Ludvikus (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone interested in understanding the "perspective" Batvette comes from simply needs to read his rants in Archive 3 of this talk page. --Loremaster (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I've dealt with so many cranks rationality-challenged individuals that I forgot him. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And you're another. Wasn't that helpful to improving the article? Batvette (talk) 01:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You, Batvette, just made a mistake. The correct response is NOT sarcasm - it's the demand that Arthur Rubin STOP his Personal Attack. You are an Administrator, Arthur Rubin, you should not say such things about another user - and you know that. So I urge - STOP the Personal Attack on User:Batvette. It violates Wikipedia rules. How many time must I ask you Arthur, and you, Loremaster, to STOP your Personal Attacks? --Ludvikus (talk) 04:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Although personal attacks should be avoided as much as possible, there are sometimes justified to make people realize that an editor is becoming a problem. --Loremaster (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see that exception on the wiki page forbidding personal attaks. Can you show me this?Batvette (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

If an editor is being disruptive, it is perfectly normal that other editors will personally attacking him by virtue of criticizing his disruptive behavior. There doesn't need to be a written exception to Wikipedia guidelines for something that is common-sense. --Loremaster (talk) 00:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that exception does NOT appear on the wiki policy page forbidding personal attacks, and I don't recall any "disruptive behaviour" on my part but I'm sure you'll allege some grave offense that only exists in the archive of your mind. If you think otherwise, produce it. Otherwise you're out of line, mister.Batvette (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The "rant" I see here: [42] involves a Personal attack on User:Batvette by User:Loremaster. You have no right to attack him as a conspiracist, even if he is one, which he's not. He might even be a Marxist - for all you know - and we no longer live underMcCarthyism. It seems you have been doing to him precisely what you've been doing to me - if you cannot win an argument, you go into your self-righteous attack mode - of protecting this article from everyone. Now I ask you on behalf of him, as well as myself: PLEASE STOP your personal attacks on the both of us. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to so incredibly polite (under the circumstances) User:Batvette, I've located the so-called "rant's": [43]. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ludvikus vouching that Batvette is not a crank must be the funniest thing I've heard on this talk page. Seriously, am I being punked? ;)

1. Everyone who has taken the time to read all of Batvette's rants (rather than only the first one) comes to conclusion that Batvette is a conspiracy theorist because he has clearly stated that he believes there is a conspiracy involving the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bohemian Grove and other groups to create a one-world governemnt. Furthermore, he went to so far as to suggest that Georgia Guidestones is proof of this conspiracy, or at the very least, proof of the possibility of a such a conspiracy. He only moderated his rhetoric to seem more sensible when I bombarded him with the serious flaws of his theories and arguments.
2. Anyone who thinks Batvette is a Marxist is an idiot especially since he clearly is a right-wing populist (and therefore an anticommunist) and I've been the one who had to explain to him what socialism is and isn't.
3. Although I don't deny that I personally attacked Batvette, I also spent a lot of time and energy replying and refuting all his convoluted arguments. By the way, Batvette has a history of making some vicious and juvenile personal attacks against me on this talk page but they were deleted by me and other editors rather than archived.
4. Like Ludvikus, Batvette has an extremely poor understanding of Wikipedia guidelines. Unlike Ludvikus, Batvette wants to edit the article in order for to reflect his opinion that there is a New World Order conspiracy or, to use his moderate rhetoric, a "tangible movement of corporate/government entities to consolodate power globally and neutralize democratic power of individuals to the detriment of humanity".
5. It is for all these reasons that I don't take him seriously.

--Loremaster (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As the term "one world government" is one I would never use, don't believe in and have never stated, you are again misrepresenting my personal views to attempt to dismiss me as editior for being a "crank". My personal views, or that of any other editor, are not yours to judge then use for exclusion from editing at wiki You think you have that right, and you are completely out of line there. Furthermore if there is any "vicious" personal attack on you you can find it in the history section of the page. Alluding to something you cannot produce is something you cannot produce. Batvette (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

1. One simply needs to look at your rants in Archive 3 to see that you have used the term "one-world government" or "world government" as an expression of something you not only fear and oppose but that you actually believe some groups are conspiring to create.
2. I never said you or anyone else should be excluded from editing. I simply said that I don't take your opinion seriously and I encourage other people to do the same.
3. As for your vicious attacks (which you know perfectly well that you made and that I deleted), I can and will produce them if asked.

--Loremaster (talk) 00:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Produce one. In your point 4 of the previous post you accurately copy and paste my "rhetoric", which, curiouisly when you use what I actually say, does not at all include what you claim at all! Formation of a one world government is not, has not and will most likely never be a belief of mine and since you are not stupid I can only assume you are misrepresenting my position to marginalize me. I don't appreciate that and it speaks volumes about your integrity. It is also typical of the way you've discouraged others from contributing to this article, and the way you have misrepresented the real issues in the article itself. You pervert everything into a ridiculous extreme then stand back and declare it is a ridiculous extreme.
2. The following is one of your statements, there are many more- Therefore, regardless of how diplomatic you might be, your comments on this talk page have convinced me (and probably a few reasonable observers of our discussions) that you are in fact a crank who can seriously damage the quality of this article if you have your way. I don't own this article but I do watch over it in light of my declared interest in improving it until it meets good article criteria. So I will protect it from you or people like Batvette who want to turn it into a vehicle for conspiracy theories. There are several more like it on the archived page- so you openly state the desire to protect the page from editing by so called conspiracy theorists and you misrepresent their positions to affix this label upon them YES YOU DO thank you, if not just produce what you claim in the first point. Don't assure anyone about the existence of what is archived nowhere but in your imagination.
3. For the second time, produce this- a history of making some vicious and juvenile personal attacks against me on this talk page. I'll save you some time. It doesn't exist. Nothing more than a snide remark or two, you're trying to play a victim card- again, to marginalize me. It's a cheap debate tactic employed by those lacking a solid position on the issues. Interestingly, I did find on the archive page another similar victim claim by yourself challenged only to have you claim questioning your opinion on subject matter constituted a personal attack. Joke. Just a bad joke. PRODUCE IT or shut it.
4. I support the inclusion of a see also section if it redirects readers seeking knowledge on their well founded beliefs of rich and powerful people working to further goals they do not divulge to the public. Said beliefs may include parts of those which are ridiculed in this article with points that can be called ridiculous themselves(see round table/CFR) This is where it is obvious you are pushing your own agenda. Their beliefs may not be so extreme as to think the world is destined for one government and similar suspicions can hardly be called a conspiracy theory, unless you'd call Dwight Eisenhower a CT. They do not need the insult to their intelligence of being labelled as cranks by the owner of this article. Batvette (talk) 10:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Batvette quotes produced

1. Here are a few examples of Batvette's statements which support the notion that he holds a conspiratorial theory of history and that he believe there is an incremental conspiracy toward one-world government:

“ [Psychologist and sociologist G. William Domhoff] assumes that a one world government must only be the immediate quick goal, and not a vast undertaking which must be accomplished in increments, and that the increments and larger goal do not serve the primary pursuit of profiteering. Rich capitalists would like to see our northern and southern borders vanish to have a vast pool of cheap labor to tap, and the closer we are to a one world government the easier it is to transfer assets in and out of the country to avoid excessive taxation. He implies their role would cease to be making money and instead be pursuing one world goverment-for what other contrary purpose he doesn't say- why create a one world government? Just to say you did? No, this ignores that the incremental steps toward this one world government serves their original purpose of profiteering quite well. ”

Loremaster's Note: Domhoff never assumed that one world government must only be an immediate quick goal. He is critical of both the notion that world government is being implemented graduallly and the notion that it will be implemented over night by some military coup. That being said, it is true that rich capitalists transfer assets in and out of control to avoid excessive taxation by national governments. However, it doesn't make any sense that they would support a one world governemnt since such an entity would be able to tax them anywhere they go.

“ Pursuit of one world government and profiteering are not contradictory nor mutually exclusive. ”

Loremaster's Note: It is contradictory if one is talking about a socialist/communist/bureaucratic collectivist one world government like most right-wing conspiracy theorists do.

“ what form of a "one world government" is required for them to profit at the expense of oportunity for the masses? That seems to be a sticking point with you and no one else. We have many changes going on which may or may not involve forming a OWG, that people may misidentify as a NWO. ”

“ I entered this talk page not looking to promote a NWO conspiracy theory but quickly became puzzled why such an intelligent person would not understand how parts of this mesh with reality. This reality, whether you wish to let it be known or not, can be viewed on 240,000 pounds of granite in a Georgia Field which cannot be dismissed as a fantasy, its absence in this article is glaring. You know the one. Would you like to cover it in this article objectively, or shall I? The Georgia Guidestones as good as validate this conspiracy theory as dead on fact ”

Loremaster's Note: The Occultism section of the article now mentions the Georgia Guidestones from a rational skeptical perspective.

“ [The Georgia Guidestones] shows there is a rational basis for the fundamental "conspiracy" if not who is behind it. ”

“ but perhaps you might rethink the existence of secretive plans by nefarious entities right under our noses? As someone already stated, when does a conspiracy become fact? ”

2. Protecting this article by reverting edits that are intented to promote conspiracy theories is not the same thing as excluding someone from editing this article. If and when Batvette (or Ludvikus or anyone else) make constructive edits to the article, I have and will accept and even welcome these edits.

3. Here is one of many examples of Batvette's vicious personal attacks: Revision as of 21:38, 14 July 2009

My archived reply to this attack was: "I'm a perfectionist who is working hard to improve this article enough to be featured on the home page of Wikipedia. Most people applaud me for my dedication rather than insult me for it."

4. Although I'm no longer opposed to a See also section in this article, you should know that I've opposed the creation of See also section in all articles I have worked on, most of which had nothing to do with New World Order conspiracism, so the notion that this opposition is related to some "agenda" I have is ridiculous. Furthermore, since I'm a left-wing progressive, I encourage people to visit neutral articles on subjects related to the power elite, political corruption, corporate crime, and transparency. What I object to is, for example, crank adding a link to Ancient Egypt to this article's See also section because he is convinced that the pharoahs were the first conspirators of the New World Order. You laugh but I actually encountered one a few months ago so this concern is legitimate.

--Loremaster (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Anyone who can read can see what my comments were regarding OWG specifically disclaim it to be a goal.You even backpedal in the preface!This is why he must inject his commentary about what he wants people to think I am saying and does not let the statements say it themselves.
2. Here's what Loremaster describes as my history of vicious personal attacks- (and over 50 minute edits in a day sounds like a crank to me- LOL- and that's not a personal attack)- and I only said it in jest because that's what he kept calling me and other editors! Loremaster, your accusation against me of a history of vicious personal attacks was GROUNDLESS. A LIE, because you knew they were not what you claimed, which is why you posted a link,(hoping nobody would look!) not the alleged statements themselves. Furthermore you've grossly misrepresented my position to marginalize me as an editor. Your actions here are shameless and reprehensible, and do not contribute positively to the wiki community.
3. I can't help but wonder if you are groundlessly marginalizing me for being a crank who has a history of vicious personal attacks, and when pushed into a corner the allegations are completely false yet you can't see that, how are we to take you seriously when you feel you can judge Ludvikus as too ignorant of the subject to edit it?Batvette (talk) 14:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• I understand, and appreciate, your passion for this article. But I'm sure you are aware that there are many, far too many, believers in conspiracy theories. Many of them probably contribute to Wikipedia. I don't think it follows that someone who believes in such theories cannot contribute constructively to Wikipedia. I strongly disagree with your marginalization of editor User:Batvette in the above. Just because he has such beliefs does not mean he cannot contribute constructively to Wikipedia. I've never heard of the Georgia Guidestones - until he brought it to my attention. Now as for myself, I'm an expert on the "greatest" conspiracy theory of all time - it's embodied in our Wikipedia article, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which is also the subject of this article. The Wikipedia community recognizes me as such an expert, and I'm currently re-vamping this article because it has degenerated as a result of my absence for over one and one half years. At the moment I have an editor there who believes in the veracity of the 1934 imprint of The Protocols. And it might be useful to us both if we explored how one ought to handle such a situation. It is becoming a bit frustrating for me there, and I haven't yet decided if that editor is a WP:Troll. But he's more difficult, I think, to handle than User:Batvette. What I find lost here is exactly what edit User:Batvette proposed which is totally inappropriate. I also believe that he's been now un-necessarily, and un-fairly, stigmatized as a crank and a conspiracist by you alone. And you still persist in depicting me as an ignoramus whom you will not trust to edit this article - while in fact you've adopted many, many, of the suggestions I suggested. The fact is, whether you deny it or not, you are still violating the Wikipedia rule: WP:Ownership. My desire is for us to reach an amicable understanding with one another, and to be able to work constructively on any article at Wikipedia. I think I'm able to come to accommodate your concerns. But are you capable of reaching an understanding with me? There are many editors at Wikipedia who have a great respect for my vast knowledge of history. It seems you think otherwise. I suggest that we archive this section as well, and that we invite User:Batvette to participate - in compliance with Wikipedia policy. If I see that he's trying to use Wikipedia, or this article, as his soap box, to promote a conspiracy theory, I assure you that I may even beat you to the punch in putting him in his place for violating Wikipedia policies. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I just came back from the wiki article power elite which has Loremaster's imprint on it and it would seem from this A power elite, in political and sociological theory, is a small group of people who control a disproportionate amount of wealth, privilege, and access to decision-making of global consequence. The term was coined by Charles Wright Mills in his 1956 book, The Power Elite, which describes the relationship between individuals at the pinnacles of political, military, and economic institutions, noting that these people share a common world view. Is Loremaster a consiracy theorist?Batvette (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Calm down, User:Batvette. I think if you don't calm down you will loose the argument. But I understand 100% why you are upset. I also know the significance of your source, Charles Wright Mills, and his 1956 book, The Power Elite. But if you don't calm down, User:Loremaster will win the argument. I know how difficult it is for you to calm down - it wasn't easy for me either. And as you must know, since I did not loose my cool, there's now the attempt to get me "banned," as User:Loremaster states above. What is needed now is an accounting of the significance of your source. He, C. Wright Mills, perhaps more than anyone else, was responsible, intellectually, for the great '60's revolution in the United States. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• As I understand Batvette's point - in spite of his obviously excited presentation (being portrayed as a "crank" by your quotations above) - an extremely respected authority, a leftist, but certainly not a crank, expressed a New Left, or Marxist view, regarding the power elite who allegedly rule this (USA) country. It appears that this article might use the implicit suggestion that not all views which allege that there is such an un-democratic structure to the United States alleged by others who are not in fact "cranks," even if they are mistaken. An interesting (and often infuriating) example that still around that comes to my mind is the professor who is alive and well, namely Noam Chomsky. Should this article say something about such notables? --Ludvikus (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that Batvette (and anyone who thinks he has a point on the issue of the power elite) seems to ignore the fact that the Alleged conspirators section of the article (especially the first sentence of the third paragraph) fully addresses the issue he is obsessed about! That being said, Ludvikus should ask what Batvette's opinion of socialism/communism is? It may be very revealing... ;) --Loremaster (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Batvette, I promised myself a long time ago that I would no longer get myself sucked into never-ending flamewars with you. I will not add anything more to my case against you because I am fairly confident that rational people who read it (along with all your rants that can be found in Archive 3 in order to get a full picture of you) will come to the same conclusion that I have: You are a crank who could seriously damage the quality of this article. Feel free to do whatever you want but know that I am watching you. --Loremaster (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"Never ending flamewars..." How does that go? You flame me as a "crank" allegedly justified by views you blatantly misrepresent, and allude to an imagined history of me flaming you back WHICH HAS NEVER HAPPENED. Now you allude to an intent to cyberstalk me, or what? I just proved you make unfounded allegations against other editors. The "argument" is over and Loremaster is the epic phailmaster. I will return from time to time to ensure you are behaving within wikipedia guidelines.Batvette (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL Whatever. :) --Loremaster (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That was vicious! :-P--Batvette (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Compromise

Gentlemen and ladies where it applies, if you would care to enlighten me as to the source of your problems, perhaps we can reach a compromise here. I am not taking sides here and my ignorance of the topic is only shadowed by the amount of spam you have all managed to generate in the article history. Perhaps it is time for everyone to spell out the problems you see in the article, what your suggestions are and how you think we can all agree to make this work. This article like many others is controversial for sure but there is also an easily workable solutions IF we can all work together. Anymore verbal abuse however should be reported. Use of socks to edit is wrong on enough without name calling to go with it. I would be happy to act as a mediator if requested to do so. And I will personally do whatever research for verification that I am asked to do. I have no ulterior motives here and I am not connected to any of the editors involved. There fore I am neutral. Please consider my offer, as it is an attempt to improve his article and nothing more. Regards!! - 4twenty42o (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you help me out figure out what the Consensus is? Related to that issue is this Question: User:216.99.45.48 = User:Loremaster? --Ludvikus (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's the DIFF to this Article's history: [44]. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

1. I reject User:4twenty42o as as mediator for a compromise because he 1) is ignorant of the topic of the article as well as the major disputes between Ludvikus and me (which have all been archived in the interest of making this talk page more easy to read), and 2) falsely accuses me of using a sockpuppet to edit this article when I've explained (in a message on this talk page which I guess I should not have archived) that I can no longer log into my user account when I'm home because of some problem with PS3 browser. I have been quite open about the fact that I sometimes edit this article anonymously from IP User:216.99.45.48.
2. I can not and will not collaborate with someone like Ludvikus when he has clearly stated that he is ignorant of the topic of this article (New World Order conspiracism), and, most troubling of all, refuses to read the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article in its entirety before critiquing it. He has also shown repeatedly that is unable to properly understand the content of the reliable sources for this article which he has read as well as basic Wikipedia guidelines for that matter.

Therefore, no compromise is possible short of Ludvikus promising that he will take a break from editing this article until he is better informed on the topic of this article and basic Wikipedia guidelines. --Loremaster (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• The most important thing for me is that there shall be no Personal Attacks - and you've apologized for that, and I hope you will continue to be civil. I in return will not only read all the Primary sources and Secondary sources I can get my hands on, I'll even read every single word you've written on the Article page. However, it is unfair for you to be using another phone number which misinforms editors as to the true Consensus. I hope you will solve that problem very soon. Michael's book has not yet arrived. And now we have another user here. You may not like the fact that he concluded that you were a Sockpuppet, but it was a natural conclusion for him to draw. Let's all try to get along and work together. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, however may I point out that since you admit to archiving the topic of your dual use of accounts, how am I or anyone else supposed to know the difference? Also you may recall that I said that it is an apparent use of a sock. I am not judging you nor am I attempting to cast you in an unfair light. I am simply interested in the article and would like to see this as well as many other articles improved. Your rejection though is understandable and I appreciate your candor. You may wish to reconsider the tone of your response since it appears that you are attempting to speak for everyone. - 4twenty42o (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

4twenty42o, you have a point but I think you unfairly jumped to bad conclusions since it does happen that people get logged out without realizing it and continue to edit until they realize what's happens. As for my tone, I don't speak for everyone but I do speak as the main contributor to this article. --Loremaster (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ludvikus, I have never used an anonymous IP to misinform people about consensus. Only comments on a talk page are taken into account when trying to determine consensus and I've never posted anonymously on this talk page. Even if I wanted to, the browser on my home computer prevents me from editing Wikipedia talk page. What I have done is revert your edits anonymously with an edit summary that was too brief, which created confusion in the mind of 4twenty42o since he is unfamiliar with our disputes. That being said, because of recent experience, I cannot have good faith that you will properly understand the content of all these sources even if you read them all. --Loremaster (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

In other words, you OWN this page, and you decide who's worthy of editing it, or not. Do I really have to quote to you the rule WP:OWNERSHIP? --Ludvikus (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No. I don't own this article but I have taken responsibility for it. That being said, the article we fight over is incidental. The issue is whether or not the two of us can cooperate over time. I simply explaining to you that I cannot and will not cooperate with someone like you because of the good reasons I have listed above. You can edit the article as much as you want. However, it is perfectly in my right to revert your edits which I judge to be bad for the article. --Loremaster (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

And I have a right to Revert your edits - but we both have a responsibility to Wikipedia to avoid an Edit War. Now I can change, adopt, compromise. Can you? --Ludvikus (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I told you the only compromise I'm interested in if the request to get you banned fails: You taking a break until you can demonstrate that you are better informed. --Loremaster (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Now you are all getting somewhere.. Loremaster I don't think you understand my position, with regards to the use of a second editing account. While mistakes do indeed happen, and I make them probably more than you do, I very bluntly "jumped to bad conclusions" that you made a personal attack on another editor from an anonymous IP. That being the case and your disregard of the common practice of civility is what lead to my comments. Nothing else. I think you are a wonderful editor with a very useful mind and way with words. I could care less of you use 15 accounts to edit, so long as you clarify (which you did) your reasons. I honestly believe that you are not only a main contributor to this article but also that you act as a stopper to the majority of the problems that have arisen. If you are reading something else into my comments then I apologize to you. It is not my intention to make you feel that you are wrong for editing from an anon.. My position is and will remain that the use of more than 1 account is acceptable, so long as personal attacks are not made, and they are not used in conjunction with the purpose of altering consensus. - 4twenty42o (talk) 00:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you (4twenty42o) and I have come to an amicable understanding. --Loremaster (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed and appreciated. - 4twenty42o (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

To become a Good Article

That's totally unacceptable. People are not going to find this posting when they read your edits. It's been quite a while that you've been doing this. And now you've attacked another editor because he did not know that you had two (2) accounts. You cannot blame him for your irregular conduct. You should solve this problem ASAP. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

First, although it is a problem I am trying to solve, there is absolutely nothing wrong with editing anonymously. The only thing that is wrong is doing it for the purpose of deception. Second, most people read the first section of this talk page so I'm confident they will find this posting. Third, you need to let this go right now if you want us to continue having a truce. --Loremaster (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

And since October 5, 2009 (when I was already here) this article has been improving in large part due to another editor who for the moment shall remain nameless: [45]. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael Barkun's review of the article!

Loremaster, I hope you don't mind me reformatting your comment. Inappropriate use of bold is distracting, blockquote is more standard, and personal information such as mailing addresses are generally discouraged on WP. -Verdatum (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

That's funny. I just got an email directly from my own scholar, and Ive asked his permission to post his email on Wikipedia - because it is, obviously, a private communication.

That said, I'd like to point out that it can be a useful resource. However, it cannot be used as a reference precisely because it hasn't been published. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The great debunker Philip Graves. I've been editing this article at least since 2007. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm obviously using this email like I would suggestions in the peer review. --Loremaster (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I've received an email from Prof. Michael Barkun that he's reviewed the article herein, saying that not all of his suggestions were implemented (meaning some have). --Ludvikus (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on implementing his other suggestions. --Loremaster (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you'd do much better if you seriously consider either (1) a Book Review of his book, or (2) a succinct and unified presentation of Barkun's model - or thesis - concerning the NWO Conspiracy phenomena structure. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

If Barkun thinks the article is sound and comprenhensive, forgive me for not taking your ignorant opinion seriously since you haven't even read his book yet! Even when you do, I'm convinced you will be unable to understand it properly. --Loremaster (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

When I contacted Michael Barkun a second time, shortly after you claimed you had, he told me he would be away for a ten (10) days and would respond thereafter. Regarding your request for "forgiveness" - how can I forgive such desperation which insists on violating Wikipedia policy: "No personal attacks." The more you insult me, the more I'm convinced I'm on the right path in exposing here the personal lore of the one who claims to be the master thereoff. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The more you persist in trying to damage this article with convoluted proposals, the more I will personally criticize you. That being said, please let us know what Barkun thinks if and when he replies to you. --Loremaster (talk) 16:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Fight the NWO

Resist the nwo fight the power! don't be sheeple anymore stand up demand to know the truth. You cant silence the people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.11.44.18 (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is neither a forum nor a soapbox. Is anyone opposed to deleting this unconstructive entry? 134.106.41.27 (talk) 10:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Malachi Martin's books, including Windswept House

I recently tried to add a book by Father Malachi Martin to the book list for this page, only to have editor Arthur Rubin reject it as vandalism.

Please visit the Amazon website to view the back cover of Malachi Martin's book, Windswept House, a faction (or roman a clef) book detailing the role of high-ranking prelates within the Church in helping to establish a new world order. These are the first two sentences from the back cover:

The Cold War has ended. With a scope and daring not possible until now, an unlikely international alliance of top-level political, financial, and religious interests sees the way at last to its ultimate goal: the establishment of a single global society. Utopia.

Example, from page 36: "What remained to be done now was to transform the papacy itself into a complaisant, even a cooperative, handmaiden in the service of a new creation. A new earthly habitat. A truly New World Order. When that transformation was complete, Day Three would dawn on an earthly paradise."

A key to the real identities of the characters is available on the web, to which Malachi Martin is quoted as saying was "well done." In interviews, he stated the book was at least 80% real events.

This book was to be part of a two book series. The follow-up to this book was to be, "Primacy: How the Institutional Roman Catholic Church Became a Creature of the New World Order." See [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15689 here].

Malachi Martin is also an author of a best seller, "Keys of This Blood: Pope John Paul II Versus Russia and the West for Control of the New World Order."

Thank-you. MeSoStupid (talk) 02:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you MeSoStupid for discuss your proposed changes to the article here instead of engaging in an edit war. Malachi Martin is a relatively well-known traditionalist Catholic conspiracy theorist. However, Windswept House: A Vatican Novel is obviously a work of fiction. The Literature section of the article only focuses on works of non-fiction. That being said, Keys of This Blood: Pope John Paul II Versus Russia and the West for Control of the New World Order could possibly be mentioned in this section since it contains paranoid conspiracy theories about the New World Order that have all proven to be false. --Loremaster (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If you just read the above you'd know that it's not fiction in ordinary sense of the word. It's a roman a clef book, with real persons and events. Also, you just added the word "non-fiction" to the top of this list edit. That word wasn't there when I originally added this book. You also previously removed this book after I added it. You did it for a different reason, and listed in your edit summary that the "book obviously has nothing to do with New World Order conspiracy theory." MeSoStupid (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, you claim to be familiar with all the claims made by Martin in "Keys of this Blood", and that they've all "been proven false." And yet, you didn't know about his last book on the topic at all, and stated that it "obviously has nothing to do with New World Order conspiracy theory." Well, sorry, but I don't agree with you one bit. Thanks for your time. MeSoStupid (talk) 03:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• My apologies, MeSoStupid. I was in a rush and I didn't take the time to properly assess Windswept House: A Vatican Novel and the edit summary of my revert was too vague. However, when I said that this "book obviously has nothing to do with New World Order conspiracy theory", I meant to say that this book 1) remains a work of fiction even if it is a roman à clef, 2) isn't notable since it wasn't a best-seller, and 3) isn't notable since it isn't considered important in the NWO conspiracy-theorist community. However, I wouldn't mind being proven wrong if you can.

You are right that you couldn't have known that the Literature section of the article was reserved for non-fiction books. That's why I added the word "non-fiction" after you added the book to clarify things for other editors.

As for Keys of This Blood, I actually read this book when it came out and judged it for what it was: A work of Traditionalist Catholic conspiracy theory. As for my claims that his Martin's theories about the New World Order have been proven false. One simply needs to read Publishers Weekly review of the book on Amazon.com to know history has proven them to be false:

“ In Martin's apocalyptic scenario, Pope John Paul II is a geopolitican whose aim is a new world order, the Grand Design of God on earth, a global government rooted in a recognition of universal interdependence. The other chief players in the "millennium end-game" are "hardcore Leninist" Gorbachev, bent on world domination, and the West's rulers, said to be eager to maintain the status quo as they condone "sinful structures" such as Third World exploitation. Martin ( The Jesuits ) contends that the Pope has allowed the Church to split into politicized factions and willfully ignores "rampant decadence and unfaith" among churchmen. He spins a dramatic tale in this long, unpersuasive saga, which purports to be a behind-the-scenes probe of the Vatican's role in the collapse of the Iron Curtain. ”

Does any rational person believe that Gorbachev was a "hardcore Leninist" bent on world domination? Even if he was, things didn't really work out the way he wanted, did they? Ultimately, Martin's fear that a global government was going be established near, on, or after the turn of the century never materialized, did it? So, I have two questions for you, MeSoStupid: Are you a Traditionalist Catholic? And do you subscribe to Martin's conspiracy theories? --Loremaster (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You wrote, " I was in a rush and I didn't take the time to properly assess ... " [etc]. Yeah. Okay. I've stated my position and don't have interest in continuing this further or trying to re-add the book. What I am definitely concerned about is this article as a whole, and the direction you and another person or two have taken it in, the subjective tone and determination of editing, and many other things. If there were a large pool of other editors working together on the basic content of this page, I would begin discussion of my concerns for the article at large. However, at the present time, I don't believe it would be worthwhile to do so, because the page appears to be controlled by few people, and people whom I would likely be unable to continue to assume good faith with. So, I am leaving this page for now and may check back here after some period of time to see if anything has evolved. Thanks so much. MeSoStupid (talk) 01:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This page is controlled by few people: it's the New Wikipedia Order! Btw., criticism is always welcome, so what do you suggest to make this article more NPOV? 87.166.93.138 (talk) 07:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• User:87.166.93.138, I don't own this article but I have and will continue to take responsibility for it. That being said, 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.

It seems my sarcasm didn't come through once again. Sorry. 87.166.96.238 (talk) 07:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oh I see. I misinterpreted your comments because there are so many cranks who have actually accused Wikipedia of being controlled by the CIA and therefore of being a tool of New World Order to maintain it's cultural hegemony. Don't laugh cause it's actually sad. --Loremaster (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's rather bizarre that Loremaster says the book isn't notable because it isn't a "best seller" yet also says he read it when it came out. Not trying to start a fight, just sayin'... Batvette (talk) 13:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Batvette, you are so preoccupied with finding fault with me that you find bizzareness where there is none. MeSoStupid is talking about two different books by the same author: Windswept House: A Vatican Novel (which I haven't read) and Keys of This Blood: Pope John Paul II Versus Russia and the West for Control of the New World Order (which I read a long time when it first came out). --Loremaster (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• MeSoStupid, putting aside the fact that my apology and confession is a sign of my good faith, your attitude is not helpful. Unless I am incapacited by, or die in, an accident or I am banned from Wikipedia for an outrageous violation of behavioral guidelines, I will probably remain the main contributor to the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article for years to come. So you have no choice but to work with me. I don't own this article but I've openly declared my interest in collaborating with anyone (who has created a user account) in order to make the article well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable enough for Good and Featured Article status. The "subjective tone" and "determination of editing" of this article is a reflection of the fact that 1) it is being edited from a rational skeptical yet neutral perspective, and 2) that it reports what a majority of reliable sources have to say on this subject. Unfortunately, this topic by its very nature attract many cranks who want to and have tried to edit the article in order to use it as a vehicle to promote their pet conspiracy theories without ever supporting any of their claims with reliable sources (which is obviously impossible for them). This has obviously made me very protective of this article. However, in order to avoid another misunderstanding such as the one we have just had, I suggest you discuss substantial changes on this talk page before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information. --Loremaster (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• By the way, MeSoStupid, you might want to read Sandra Miesel's article Swinging at Windmills: The Catholic Conspiracy Theories by Sandra Miesel if only for the following passage:

“ the notion that the Church, particularly the Italian Church, is packed with secret Masons lives on. Why, it was plotted out more than 150 years ago in The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita and similar documents outlining well-laid plans to pervert the Church and elect a Masonic pope. This fantasy was promoted by Malachi Martin (who claimed there were Satanists in on it, too) and preached by ex-Dominican John O'Connor (who thinks only one or two cardinals are really Catholic). ”

Need I say more. --Loremaster (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Why are you showing this to me?

That's one person's opinion. The current pope of the Catholic Church re-affirmed the anti-Masonic policies a few decades ago after reconsideration, some of the information under seal so we don't even know the full reasons. Catholics aren't allowed to be Freemasons, and aren't allowed to receive Communion, and they have their reasons for this. This is official policy, and those not abiding by this policy are deemed heretics, and probably anathema since they aren't allowed to receive Communion. So this person's views are not Catholic. If you check the history, it wasn't all that long ago that if a Catholic joined Freemasonry they were subject to automatic excommunication. Yet even in modern times, an anti-Masonic policy remains because of information that they in part keep classified. I suspect the information in this book partly reveals the nature of what that information might be about, Martin hinting at an elite inner fraternity of what he calls "master engineers" where the rest are in the dark about it, according to him. That's not really something that can be proved or disproved. Also, in that above quotation that you just put on my page, it notes that Malachi Martin claimed that "Satanists were in on it, too". Well, you know what? It's certainly not just Martin saying that. Pope Benedict's own Chief Exorcist, Fr. Amorth said that "legions of demons" (Satanists) have recently installed themselves in the Vatican. This interview was in 30 Days Magazine, and if you search for it, you can find it online.

You seem to be engaging in point-of-view pushing, and selectively deeming which conspiracy theories as to the supposed New World Order Conspiracy are worthy based on your own point of view, and those that aren't. Apparently theories by well-known Catholic scholars as to the New World Order Conspiracy are ridiculous, but others are just fine. That's not your job as an editor. These are fringe theories to begin with. There is no definitive right and wrong that can be shown, regardless of what in truth is right and wrong. If there was, they wouldn't be called theories. What makes you think I even adopt Martin's theories or even that I'm Catholic, for that matter? Did you ever think that maybe I'm just educated and read books a lot? In addition, what makes you think I even believe in a New World Order Conspiracy? How do you know I'm not a Freemason myself and maybe that's the reason I read it? All I did, mind you, was add a simple book title to a reading list, something that very few visitors to the page will even pay attention to. Let me give you an analogy. A lot of people are fascinated by reports of UFO's and read books and watch television specials on them because they find it intriguing. Yet if you polled a lot of these people, many of them would say they don't believe in UFO's. Do you only read about things you believe in, or what? Do you only consider evidence that fits your preconceived ideologies? Why else would you have selectively pulled out negative reviews when there are also positive ones of these books and this person? If so, that's not particularly mature or demonstrative of wisdom.

I'm not pushing for any agenda. That book was recommended to me by someone not all that long ago as a good read, and I read it and followed up with related material. I was fascinated by the evidence of controversy Martin's book stirred, and some of the claims within, particularly since he worked in the Vatican side by side with some of the individuals he accuses of being aligned with dark forces in his book. It managed to stir enough emotion that a smear campaign was launched against him as soon as he died, after which much of the accusations as to his personal life were shown to be manufactured. He certainly pissed people off somewhere with this stuff. I think this book is notable, and I went ahead and tried to add it to two book lists. You didn't even know what this book was at first. You first said it had nothing to do with New World Order Conspiracy at all, and then you tried to cover this up in a way that I found rather humorous. And then you point out that is wasn't a "best seller". And now you're "lecturing" to me about it when you haven't even read it for crying out loud, and you seemingly have no respect for alternative points of view, and seem to assume that you automatically know better than others. I frankly don't care if the book is there or not. I also wouldn't have posted an entry on the talk page at all after its removal had it not been removed for quote, "vandalism" by administrator Arthur Rubin, which left me upset. Although I have a mild to moderate interest in the subject area and might have been interested at some point in doing some work on the article, it is by no means something that would have been a priority for me or something I felt like I was on a special mission to complete.

And also I pointed out that there is a problem with the tone and subjective nature of the article as a whole. As just one example, one line reads, "It also inflamed conspiracy theorists,[66] who misinterpret the “eye and pyramid” as the Masonic symbol of the Illuminati, an 18th-century secret society they wrongly believe continues to exist and is plotting on behalf of a New World Order." It's not the job of the editors to decide who is "misinterpreting" and who isn't. It's not encyclopedic to state that such people "wrongly believe" something. That's not how to go about that.

Had I never been abused by Rubin who bullied me and used his status and influence over other administrators to keep himself from getting into trouble, I likely would have went on to contribute to quite a number of completely unrelated articles and spent my time elsewhere. Although, I do consider myself fairly well-read in the realm of "new world conspiracy theories", because I've found the area intriguing even if bizarre, and have spent some time on it for recreation. But the Rubin stuff has removed whatever interest I originally had in contributing to the wikipedia project. MeSoStupid (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• MeSoStupid, you seem terribly confused.

1. Sandra Miesel is a Catholic writer who has written hundreds of articles for the Catholic press. She never argued that the Catholic Church doesn't have anti-Masonic policies. She simply said the notion that the Church is packed with Freemasons trying to subvert it from within is a paranoid conspiracy theory. Do you understand the difference?
2. Although it is my point of view that anyone who believes in Catholic conspiracy theories involving Satanists or demons is a crank, I was simply expressing this point of view to you on this talk page, which I have the right to do. I wasn't pushing this point of view in the article. My objection to the inclusion of Windswept House: A Vatican Novel in the article and my reservations about Keys to this Blood have nothing to do with some closed-minded point of view you think I have. However, if we decided to create a section on Catholic conspiracy theories about a New World Order that mentions the views of Malachi Martin, it would be perfectly consistant with Wikipedia guidelines to report that they are many people, Catholics and non-Catholics, who think Martin's views are absurd. Just because Martin was a Vatican insider doesn't mean that he is immune to being a paranoid conspiracy theorist. Regardless of how smart or important a person is, he or she can still believe in weird things.
3. Putting aside the fact one doesn't need to read a book in order to judge whether or not is relevant to this article (that's what second-party sources are for after all), I didn't try to cover up anything. I confessed to making a mistake, apologized for it and explained it. But I should have also confessed that my quick judgement was also influenced by the fact that Arthur Rubin described your inclusion of this book as "vandalism". I won't make that mistake again.
4. I only respect "alternative views" when they are formed on the basis of facts, scientific inquiry, and logical principles, independent of any logical fallacies or the intellectually-limiting effects of authority, cognitive bias, conventional wisdom, popular culture, prejudice, sectarianism, tradition, urban legend, and all other dogmatic or otherwise fallacious principles. Regarding this article in particular, I'm only open to claims relevant to the topic which are based on reliable sources. I have no respect for someone who edits the article to include a statement like "The New World Order conspiracy is real! And it has corrupted the Catholic Church from within". However, I will respect someone who edits the article to include a statement like "some Traditionalist Catholic conspiracy theorists, such as Malachi Martin, believe agents of a New World Order have infiltrated the Catholic Church in order to subvert it with liberal reforms and even satanic rituals."
5. On the issue the caption under the image of the Great Seal of the United States (which, not surprisingly, a lot of true believers in an Illuminati conspiracy seem to dislike), let me say this as clearly as possible: If reliable sources tell us that some people are "misinterpreting" or "wrongly believe" something, we must report what they said regardless of our personal views.
6. In light of your strong bias, forgive me for not shedding a tear if you decide to no longer contribute to Wikipedia.

--Loremaster (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've now included Keys to This Blood to the Literature section of the article. --Loremaster (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

RE- the book- my bad, thought you were talking about the same title. That mistake notwithstanding, you can see under that belief why it would be absurd to deny a source as not notable when it was significant enough you'd read it. Still, was the other title much more obscure than the one you'd read? How did their sales circulation compare? (LOL, not going to go there)Batvette (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no policy against Loremaster reading non-notable publications. Anyone is welcome to establish the text's significance by searching for other works that cite it. -Verdatum (talk) 14:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Batvette seems to think that the fact one person (whether it be me or him or you) read a book automatically makes it notable, which is obviously ridiculous. According to Wikipedia notability guidelines for books, a book is notable if 1) it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary; 2) it has won a major literary award; 3) has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement; 3) it is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country; and 4) it's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable.

That being said, sources tell us that Keys to This Blood was a bestseller. If someone can find sources that tell us Windswept House was a bestseller as well that would be great but it wouldn't change anything (unless we decide to create a New World Order conspiracy theory in popular culture section in which such a book could be included).

--Loremaster (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't immediately locate the Times figures on sales but an interesting figure is that the Amazon.com page for Keys to this Blood lists it as Amazon's (appx) 86,000th best seller and Windswept House as its (again appx) 186,000th best seller. However the prior has 25 customer reviews but the latter has 77 customer reviews. Indicating the possibilities the former's sales were disproportionately high on Amazon as opposed to other sources or that the latter, while selling less copies overall had more readers moved emotionally to seek a place to express their satisfaction with the book. (as nearly all the reviews were of a positive nature, most gushingly). In any case I believe 77 reviews on Amazon hits notable on whatever scale it's measured on.Batvette (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

But those would all be scales that don't matter to an encyclopedia. --Loremaster (talk) 05:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The Family

Should the political organization The Family be included in this article? Kylelovesyou (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Tell us why and how you think it should be included and then we will able to give you an answer. --Loremaster (talk) 03:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming you think The Family should be included in the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article because in 1944 Abraham Vereide foresaw what he called a “New World Order” and began organizing prayer meetings for delegates to the United Nations, at which he would instruct them in God's plan for rebuilding from the wreckage of the war. I don't see this as being significant unless critics point out that conspiracy theorists make a big deal out of this. --Loremaster (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to Veriede's foreshadow. The group has received coverage recently following Jeff Sharlet's book The Family: Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power as being a secretive organization in control, at least partly, of american/world politics. I have heard it called a conspiracy theory. But I don't know much about including it in New World Order page, just a thought. Kylelovesyou (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The New World Order (conspiracy theory) article is about conspiracy theories about a New World Order. If you can find scholars and/or journalists who point out that some conspiracy theorists are now ranting that The Family has been plotting to create a New World Order it will be my pleasure to include a mention of them in this article, probably in the End Time section. --Loremaster (talk) 04:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I think it would great to find a way to mention the Family in this article since it shows how New World Order conspiracism can turn Christian fundamentalists against themselves! :) --Loremaster (talk) 08:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I added a quick mention. --Loremaster (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Archiving this page

• User:Loremaster. You should wait until the ANI is over before you Cover Up your tracks. Let that community see exactly what you were doing. Archiving is not to be used for personal gain. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not covering up anything otherwise I wouldn't be pointing people to Archive 3 all the time. Only deleting discussions from this talk page without archiving them would be considered covering up. I am just archiving discussions that are obviously over and because I want to get back to only discussing improvements to this article. --Loremaster (talk) 06:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI is over: User:Ludvikus has been indefenitely blocked by User:Moreschi on 31 October 2009. --Loremaster (talk) 10:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a mini-consensus between Loremaster and I that it appears the Ludvikus saga may have reached its exhaustion and it is constructive to move on with the content to the archive. (my final comments on the ANI are on the talk page of the editor who banned him, it's possible there may be further discussion on that but I made the effort and spoke my peace and will not discuss it here) In the future I would ask in a good faith gesture that Loremaster needn't be so hasty to archive talk page content in general and adhere to the general standards one finds throughout wikipedia on keeping this page's active talk content in full view. Let's just say if I had a problem with the article and express it civilly even if we don't agree on it and it isn't acted upon it's probably better to leave it here for others to view for a while, months even, as long as the page is below a certain number of characters. It shouldn't hurt the article's quality and will keep me from feeling as if I have to repeatedly make the comment or others do the same. It may also behoove the article's continued quality to do that as perhaps potential vandals will see a discussion here as an invitation to comment and do so, rather than make their comment a vandalization within the main article. Ever think of that? If you invite someone a place to voice their concern civilly they might be less likely to force their shouting instead.Batvette (talk) 11:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Now he's blocked all this disruptive content should be moved to an archive. It will make it easy for new editors to read ongoing and on topic discussion, and not put them off from commenting. Verbal chat 11:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

.Batvette, after over 5 years of editing Wikipedia articles, I can seriously say that I have thought of almost everything you might suggest to me. ;) According to Wikipedia guidelines: “It is customary to periodically archive old discussions on a talk page when that page becomes too large. Bulky talk pages may be hard to navigate, contain obsolete discussion, or become a burden for users with slow Internet connections or computers. On the other hand, there may be circumstances where it benefits discussions to keep older sections visible on the talk pages, so that newly visiting editors can see which issues have been addressed already and avoid redundant discussion. However, this can also be solved by placing notices at the beginning of the talk page.” That being said, I have edited this article long enough to know that there are four groups of people who edit it:

1. Rational skeptics who want this article to be best example of a critical yet neutral analysis of New World Order conspiracism.
2. Cranks who believe that the New World Order is not a conspiracy theory but a FACT. They often edit the article only to delete the word “theory” and then leave.
3. Cranks who believe in a New World Order conspiracy and want to edit the article so that it emphasizes and promotes their pet conspiracy theory about a New World Order. They tend to be more persistent but usually leave when confronted by constant opposition.
4. Reasonable but misguided invidivuals who are concerned about the rise of the transnational capitalist class but, unfortunately, have embraced New World Order conspiracism instead of Marxist analysis. They wish that paranoid New World Order conspiracy theories involving the Illuminati, Freemasons, Elders of Zion, New Agers, Nazis, alien overlords, and transhumanists would be deleted so that the article solely focuses on the Round Table conspiracy. Although I sympathize with this group, what they fail to understand is that an article on New World Order conspiracism must be comprehensive and therefore cannot exclude the conspiracy theories they judge to be ridiculous and only include the conspiracy theories they judge to be reasonable.

People in group 2 and 3 are rarely interested in discussion on this talk page because they know their convoluted comments and proposed changes will not stand up to rational criticisms so they automatically resort to vandalism, which can be and is always quickly reverted. --Loremaster (talk) 11:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, there may be circumstances where it benefits discussions to keep older sections visible on the talk pages, so that newly visiting editors can see which issues have been addressed already and avoid redundant discussion.

That is the relevant issue. Batvette (talk) 05:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If you now brought any specific discussions you want to keep on the first page and reasons for doing so, this could go somewhere constructive. 134.106.41.27 (talk) 10:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Batvette, I don't want to start a fight so I only say this in the hopes you take it as a constructive criticism: One of the things that frustrated me so much during out past discussions is the tendency you have to quote a sentence out of context with the consequence of obscuring the fact that the following sentence often contradicts the point you want to make. In this particular case, you conveniently left out this part: However, this can also be solved by placing notices at the beginning of the talk page. In other words, instead of keeping older sections visible on this talk page, let's come up with a NOTICE about a recurring dispute. For example, it would be wise to have a notice that addresses questions about the neutrality of this article since 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. --Loremaster (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

As a third opinion, Ludvikus is blocked indefinitely, and many of the archived threads indeed appear to be stale/resolved issues. Archiving seems appropriate. Batvette, if you wish to re-raise any specific issues from the archives, you may link to them and add any new comments that reflect your personal position as new sections below. Most of the issues (going from memory) seemed to be largely back and forth between Ludvikus and Loremaster, and frequently dealt with Ludvikus' misunderstanding of Policy, so I suspect it'll be easier to understand future discussions without it. Most importantly, I don't really see it as something worth bickering over. The discussions aren't gone, merely one click away. -Verdatum (talk) 00:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Batvette is concerned about the issues that Ludvikus raised. He will correct me if I am wrong but I think one can get an idea about the problems Batvette has with this article by reading an archived discussion entitled Neutrality in Question, which contains his last criticisms of the article. --Loremaster (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If that is the comment of Sept 15 here- Neutrality in Question I think that pretty much sums it up, and I'll add that hardly reflects the beliefs of a "crank", though I guess Loremaster now has labelled me as "reasonable but misguided". Do you, Loremaster, feel that your response to the original comment reflects that of an editor willing to work with others? I also just noticed the Satan vs. aliens point you made below that, and I'll just say I don't notice most references anyone makes to Beelzabubb because they are usually made by those frothing at the mouth waving a bible. I'm a devout agnostic, subscribing to the beliefs of the prophet Homer- "But Marge, what if we pick the wrong religion? Every time we go to church we just make God madder and madder!". Batvette (talk) 13:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Being a crank doesn't mean that one is unable to express logial arguments sometimes or even most of the time. However, what has forever convinced me that you are a crank is your claim that the Georgia Guidestones "as good as validate this [NWO] conspiracy theory as dead on fact". Find me one rational person who agrees with you on this point and then we'll talk. That being said, I do feel that my original comment reflects that of an editor willing to work others. However, it also reflects that of an editor with zero tolerance for working with people who are so fanatical in their beliefs that they are unable to understand what this article is and isn't about despite numerous explanations. On the issue of Satan vs. aliens, if you don't have a problem with this article containing the ridiculous beliefs of bible-thumpers, why do you have a problem with it containing the ridiculous beliefs of ufologists? If your problem is that references to UFO conspiracy theory in an article about the NWO make "serious" anti-NWO critics look foolish, my argument was that references to Antichrist conspiracy theory in an article about the New World Order also make "serious" anti-NWO critics look foolish so, to be logically consistant (even if you are wrong), you should also be opposed to such references in this article. Do you understand? That being said, I am restoring below that archived discussion in order for you to respond to my arguments (which fully address all the issues you raised) so we can resolve this dispute once and for all. --Loremaster (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

"your claim that the Georgia Guidestones "as good as validate this [NWO] conspiracy theory as dead on fact".

Either through my own fault (not properly expressing the context) or yours (taking it out of context within the point I was trying to make) you're misunderstanding the point I was making there. What I was saying was NOT that the Guidestones proves that a "New World Order" movement as a viable, plausible movement (as in could actually be realized) existed- but that the Guidestones, as being a real tangible icon placed by real people, proved that SOMEbody desired and may actually be working toward accomplishing it, and their existence gave NWO/CT believers a basis for their beliefs. The difference is significant in that this means I do not have any "paranoid fears of a conspiracy of a small group of people who are forming a one world government" at all. I think some nutty people somewhere like R Christian wouldn't mind doing it and maybe even have meetings where they drink tea and wear funny robes and spank each other in bizarre rituals. There isn't a chance in hell of it actually happening so I don't fear it. What it also means is those NWO/CT's should not necessarily be dismissed as uninformed or "cranks" because there ARE people who would do such a thing and there are statements, writings and icons like the guidestones which show their fears are not all paranoia- the fact it really couldn't happen doesn't affect that. Batvette (talk) 14:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No, Batvette. You properly expressed the context and I fully took it into account within the point you were trying to make when I showed it to be absurd the first time we had this discussion months ago.

As Joseph Laycock's piece 10 Commandments of the Anti-Christ: Mysterious "Guidestones" Madden Conspiracy Theorists and Christian Fundamentalists and the Occultism section of the NWO conspiracy theory article clearly explains, the Georgia Guidestones does NOT prove the New World Order is something that some people desire and may actually be working toward accomplishing nor does its existence give NWO conspiracy theorists a basis for their beliefs.

The common theme in conspiracy theories about a New World Order is that a powerful and secretive elite of globalists is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an autonomous world government, which would replace sovereign nation-states and put an end to international power struggles. The Georgioa Guidestones (GG), on the other hand, is inscribed with a message comprising ten guides to serve as instructions for survivors of a doomsday event to establish a more enlightened and sustainable civilization than the one which was destroyed. Not only are these two radically different propositions but none of the GG instructions contain a call for world government. The one instruction which recommends that all nations should be ruled internally while resolving external disputes in a world court is obviously not a call for world government. It's the fundamental idea behind the United Nations and the International Criminal Court and only a conspiracy theorist would think these two existing institutions represent the dreaded collectivist one-world government or that the GG supporst such an irrational interpretation.

So I maintain that New World Order conspiracy theorists should be dismissed as uniformed cranks especially if they bring up things like the GG that obviously have absolutely nothing to do with a NWO conspiracy theory.

--Loremaster (talk) 02:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The inscriptions on the Guidestones, while also containing a few contradicting anecdotes, indeed contain the bulk of what you define to be the intentions of this so called "New World Order conspiracy", and you all but admit that. The distinction you wish to use to disqualify its relevance is the Guidestones imply these goals are to be pursued after some great apocalyptic disaster. The disconnect is not valid as many of these conspiracy theorists, by your own admission via inclusion of the end time section, already expect a biblical apocalypse to occur within their lifetimes which by many accounts would leave the populations at a number not dissimilar with that stated on the Guidestones, so that needn't be stated on the stones at all. The apocalypse is already a done deal in their minds. The further point of the placer of the Stones using the pseudonym R. Christian even alludes to that angle.

I also don't appreciate you again attempting to portray me as a crank not for my actual personal beliefs but for points I am discussing about this article. You know you are implying that toward me. These tactics are shamefully immature and petty to employ when it's obvious I am trying to put our differences to rest and have NEVER waged personal attacks upon you. If I say that the existence of the Guidestones possibly provide a basis for Conspiracy Theorists to hold their beliefs and elaborate that those beliefs are absurd to actually be realized, and I did just that, claims it makes me a crank are obvious intellectual dishonesty. Knock it off already. Batvette (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I am NEVER going to knock anything off because you see, Batvette, your rant is exactly the kind of drivel that no only makes me question your intellectual honesty and even your reasoning skills but discourages me from engaging you in discussion. The ONLY distinction I wish to use is to disqualify the relevance of the Guidestones is that NONE of these inscriptions on the Guidestones can rationally be interpreted as anything remotely close to a call for world goverment.

Your non-sensical arguments about the biblical apocalypse (Where does the End Time section say that the world government of Antichrist will be implemented AFTER an apocalypse? Most millenerian Christians believe the utopian world government of the Antichrist will come to power BEFORE it reveal its true colors and instigates a population-reducing apocalyptic world war), and the placer using the pseudonym R. C. Christian (which alludes to what exactly?!?) only comfirms your crankiness.

That being said, have you even taken the time to read and UNDERSTAND Joseph Laycock's piece 10 Commandments of the Anti-Christ: Mysterious "Guidestones" Madden Conspiracy Theorists and Christian Fundamentalists? Yes or No?

--Loremaster (talk) 07:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

So why is it I'm out in left field somewhere for merely mentioning a possible connection if others have written about it? In fact it's hilarious you are offering a piece stating that Conspiracy Theorists and Christian Fundamentalists are making this connection to refute my argument that they are making the connection! Whether that author wants to rationalize it is an invalid connection or not is irrelevant. My point is nothing more than establishing some passages of the inscriptions, namely number 3- 3.Unite humanity with a living new language. and number 6-6.Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court. allude to a similar intent about what they believe is NWO. Does it say "one world government"? No. I don't suppose the guy who vandalized it last year by painting NWO all over it thought to check with you to see the distinction. As for your reply about end time, playing dumb is not an argument. You open the section with "millinerian christians"- oh, you mean these guys?Millenarian groups claim that the current society and its rulers are corrupt, unjust, or otherwise wrong. They therefore believe they will be destroyed soon by a powerful force. Yeah, them. AND FOR THE LAST TIME IT IS NOT YOUR PLACE TO JUDGE WHO IS A CRANK OR NOT AND PREVENT THEM FROM CONTRIBUTING TO A WIKI ARTICLE BASED UPON THAT JUDGEMENT. Batvette (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* Let's clarify one thing once and for all because I'm tired of you continuously bringing this up: Although you are correct that I should avoid personal attacks on this talk page (even when I think they are justified), I have the right to form an opinion as to whether or not someone is a disruptive editor due to him or her being a crank. However, I'm not an administrator. I can't prevent anyone from contributing to a Wikipedia article. People I judge to be cranks are free to edit this article as much as they want. My judging them cranks simply means that I will pay more attention to their edits, than I would those of an editor I have reason to trust, in order to revert edits that seem to damage the article (such as your unjustifiable attempt in the past to delete the Alien Invasion section of the article). Not only do I have a right to do this but it is my duty.

Regardless, you are again showing that you have poor reasoning skills. I never said that you are the only person making a (false) connection between the GG and NWO conspiracy theory. My point in offering you Holland's article is that journalists and scholars all agree that the only people who make such a connection are in fact conspiracy theorists and (a small minority of) Christian fundamentalists! So this isn't simply my personal opinion. Every rational skeptic will you tell you that someone is a conspiracist crank if they insist on bringing up the GG in the context of defending the notion that there is some validity to the belief that there might be people conspiring to create a one-world government.

That being said, dispensationalist and fundamentalist Christians, who are a sub-set of millinerian Christians, have a very specific timetable as to when and how the apocalypse will occur. I suggest you familarize yourself with their Christian eschatology to understand how they are reinterpreting the GG in a way that does not reflect the secular apocalyptic worldview of the creator of the GG.

There is obviously a difference between promoting the idea of uniting humanity with a living new language and promoting the idea of a world government. Putting aside the fact that almost all of humanity is already united with the English language (which no rational person would argue was the doing of NWO conspirators), people, including friends of mine, have been promoting Esperanto for decades as a universal second language to foster peace and international understanding. Were they automatically advocating for one world government? Of course not! Many of them are even vehemently opposed to the idea. That being said, I'll be corrected if I am wrong but a one-world language is rarely been mentioned as a goal of NWO conspirators in conspiracy theories that were not influenced by the GG.

As I explained earlier, nation-states being ruled internally while external disputes are ideally resolved at the United Nations or the International Criminal Court is the CURRENT state of affairs and, except for right-wing extreme isolationists and paranoid conspiracy theorists, no rational person would argue that we are currently living under a one-world government.

So the only place where a connection between the instructions on the GG and a New World Order conspiracy theory can be made is in the convoluted mind of a crank. I rest my case.

--Loremaster (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

(undent) My interpretation of the situation:

• First, it would really help if these discussions covered one topic at a time. That's the problem with statements like (paraphrasing) "I know you're a crank because you stated X". It hijacks the topic and makes it difficult to follow the discussion. That's one of many reasons why it's best to avoid ad hominum arguments.
• I did my best to read the archived discussion on the GG, but it's quite difficult to get through due to all the aggression being hurled back and forth, so forgive me if I miss any fine details.
• I'm not seeing any evidence that Batvette is a "crank" or any other label that makes his arguments worth dismissing or scrutinizing with prejudice. It's possible that he misunderstands the desire to stick to secondary sources when possible on Wikipedia. However, it's every bit as possible that he's correct, and Loremaster is the mistaken one.
• Rehashing that GG thread, Batvette is correct that the graffiti provides evidence that at least one person sees a relationship between the stones and the NWO concept as a conspiracy theory. It is also correct that we can't just point at the graffiti and call it evidence, as that's OR. Nor can we point at random bloggers or message board posts which point at the graffiti and call it evidence, and call it evidence, as they aren't reliable sources to use for drawing conclusions. However, it appears as though Batvette did track down some legitimate sources who pointed to the stones and called it evidence. they should be acceptable as a secondary source. I thus believe discussing the graffiti incident is entirely appropriate for this article. And if a decent source discusses how they can understand how a nutjob might think that the inscriptions in question are congruent with the concept of an NWO, then details on those inscriptions are perfectly appropriate too.
• I don't believe anyone involved presently argues that the stones are in fact related to a real NWO conspiracy. The argument is that there exist paranoid people who think it is. I don't believe anyone is claiming that anyone involved on any level of the creation of the stones had even the remotest idea of an NWO in their mind. again, the argument is that there exist people who think they did. If I'm mistaken on this, please correct me.
• Loremaster claims that Batvette makes "non-sensical arguments about the biblical apocalypse". I put forth that Loremasters counterarguments come off as every bit as nonsensical. However, I don't think either is too terrible. Perhaps it's just extremely difficult to talk about such matters without at least some of what you say being a little nonsensical. It doesn't mean anyone is crazy or a closeted irrational conspiracy theorist. It probably just means they should've proofread and revised their statements a couple extra times before clicking "Save page".
• Reading Loremaster's rebuttals, they frequently appear to actually agree with Batvette. I cannot tell if he understands that Batvette is merely pointing out that people perceive a connection between the GG and NWO, or if he thinks that Batvette actually believes there is a connection between them, or if he is even able to understand there is a difference between the two. It really feels as though Loremaster has just had to deal with so many genuine wacko tin-foil hat conspiracy theorists that he formed the early conclusion that Batvette is yet another one (to at least some degree), and has allowed that conclusion to taint his interpretation of every one of Batvette's comments. If loremaster admits "that journalists and scholars all agree that the people who make such a connection are in fact conspiracy theorists," then he's just admitted that it should be discussed in this article.
• Even if Batvette was a crank, why would anyone take every opportunity to call him one? First, it's superfluous; cranks, loonies and trolls are incredibly easy for any user to spot. Secondly, it's counterproductive; one of the worst moves you can make when dealing with a crank is to call them a crank; Cranks go nuts over such things, and become 10 times harder to work with. Even non-cranks get annoyed with good reason over it, since no one likes being mislabeled.

I suppose that's enough for now. -Verdatum (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Verdatum, I understand that you want to be "the voice of reason" and the King Solomon-like moderator of disputes on this talk page (which is a role I have applauded you for assuming in the past). However, I must say that I found your comments above quite disappointing. :/

1. One of the most confusing (and exhausting) things I have found in my conversations with Batvette over the past year is having to reply to someone who has a tendency to try to cover too many topics in one discussion. That being said, I only mentioned the reason why I think he is crank (which caused the discussion to go off track) because he insists on always bringing up the fact that I called him a crank in the past.
2. Both User:Arthur Rubin and User:Dougweller have come to the conclusion that Batvette is a crank or, at the very least, someone who cannot approach the subject of NWO conspiracy theory from a rational skeptical perspective and is extremely difficult to reason with. Furthemore, they have argued that he has never edited this article in a constructive way nor made proposals that would actually improve this article.
3. Making empty statements like "Batvette may be right while Loremaster might be wrong" is useless if you can't support them with solid arguments.
4. I have never argued that Batvette was wrong when he said that some people see a connection between the GG and the New World Order conspiracy. My point was simply that journalists and academics argue that the only people who see a connection are in fact (a small minority of) conspiracy theorists and Christian fundamentalists. In other words, cranks.
5. The problem is that even though Batvette (supposedly) doesn't personally believe the creator of the GG is part of the New World Order conspiracy, he seems to be arguing that simply making a connection between the GG and the New World Conspiracy is logical when our reliable sources explain that it isn't.
6. Please explain to us how my arguments come off as non-sensical with a solid rebuttal or refrain from making comments that make me lose my confidence in your sense of judgement.
7. I'm sorry but anyone who thinks my rebuttals appear to agree with Batvette simply doesn't grasp what this entire dispute is about. I understand perflectly one of the many points that Batvette is trying to make but I've also talked with Batvette long enough to get a sense of his worldview, cognitive biases, and occasionally poor reasoning skills, which is what I am ultimately trying to get at. For example, please ask Batvette what he meant when he said the "placer of the Stones using the pseudonym R. Christian even alludes to that angle".
8. Unlike the archived dispute about the GG, the current dispute has NEVER been about the fact that we should discuss that journalists and scholars all agree that the people who connect the GG and New World Order conspiracy are in fact conspiracy theorists! The article already does that to some extent! This dispute is about Batvette's assertion that not only is it perfectly logical to make such a connection but that the conspiracy theorists who do are not cranks while I'm explaining why he is wrong.
9. As I explained above, I only brought up the reason why I think Batvette is a crank because he will never let me forget that I called him a crank in the past. If he promises to let it go, I will never use that word again to describe him.

--Loremaster (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm just reading comments too fast, but from what I've seen, you're always the first to bring up the calls of crank, not him. He usually appears forced into a defensive position, which is really a waste of time on all sides. I'd much rather stick to discussing the article.

If he's genuinely making no sense, if he's breaking policy, then fine, there's process to deal with that; incivility not needed. But he isn't making no sense. I see valid arguments here, so I'd like to explore them.

While I see that Batvette originally claims that the GG itself is evidence of the NWO theory, but he shifted to a valid argument starting around his comment on 03:29, 11 June 2009. Ignoring the fact that at least, at the time, you did not understand that Notability is Not Content, you dismiss a conspiracy theorist (who is well respected by the conspiracy theorist community) as an "unreliable source", which is contrary to WP:FRINGE; You also call him a "first party" source, (I presume you meant "primary source"), which isn't true in the context of reporting on the creation of the graffiti. The graffiti is the primary source, he's the secondary. You then say that the additional references from wired.com and the tv producer are insufficient (disclaimer: I haven't bothered to read them, but I presume they support, at least in passing, the notion that a relationship is perceived). This makes no sense to me.

Now, when I made my above comment, I didn't fully understand Batvette's position that the producer of the stone may actually be working toward accomplishing an NWO. I agree that we can't make this claim. First "may" is Weasel; second, it's a presumption at best. But, we can make the claim that the belief that "the stone is related to NWO concepts" exists as a fringe theory.

I quite agree, I don't grasp what this entire dispute is about. As I said before, things like incivility, personal attacks, and the requisite defense against the attacks, and multiple other issues that I can't bring up for fear that you'll make me track them down as evidence, all make the discussion quite hard to follow and for new editors to contribute to. Talkpages are to promote discussion with a community, not this bicker-fest with a long history. The constant editing of old comments doesn't help either. Per WP:REDACT: "Substantially altering a comment after it has been replied to may deny the reply of its original context. It can also be confusing." I find this to be true even when you're merely clarifying your arguments and fixing confusing typos.

The core discussion question is, "What aspects of the GG, if any, should be discussed in this article?" The fact that journalists and scholars are aware of the belief in the connection, and willing to comment on that belief means it passes the threshold of inclusion for this article by WP:FRINGE. This argument is the same one that Batvette made above, saying, "So why is it I'm out in left field somewhere for merely mentioning a possible connection if others have written about it?", however, your reply doesn't even appear to acknowledge this. Which is why I question if you grasp the entire dispute. It's not something to be ashamed of or insulted by, it's incredibly easy to misinterpret things, particularly in cold plaintext. This is where things like assuming good faith, carefully rereading comments before replying, and requesting clarification for confusing comments all comes in.

I suppose part of my point in describing your rebuttals as nonsensical is to demonstrate that you don't really give a solid rebuttal either. "Your non-sensical arguments about the biblical apocalypse (Where does the End Time section say that the world government of Antichrist will be implemented AFTER an apocalypse? Most millenerian Christians believe the utopian world government of the Antichrist will come to power BEFORE it reveal its true colors and instigates a population-reducing apocalyptic world war), and the placer using the pseudonym R. C. Christian (which alludes to what exactly?!?) only comfirms your crankiness." isn't a counter-argument, it's just a dismissive insult. And if you feel the only difference between good sense and nonsense in this sentence is a mere flip of the word "before" for "after", then, perhaps you use such a strong word a bit too freely.

I'm not sure if you're asking about R Christian just to open the can of worms, or if you're genuinely confused. The GG article, by way of wikilink, points out that RC Christian refers to Christian Rosenkreuz, who "according to legend," founded Rosicrucianism, which is an extremely popular topic for conspiracy theorists. Whatever arguments Batvette wishes to make in that realm do make unacceptable presumptions which cannot be used in an encyclopedia article. However, I'd say it's pretty far from a completely crackpot presumption. -Verdatum (talk) 07:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Verdatum, you seem to be still confused so I will try my best to explain this as simply as I can.

1. If you read this section from the beginning, you will see that I first used the word "cranks" to refer to people other than Batvette that have edited the article in order to turn it into a vehicle for the uncritical promotion of New World Order conspiracy theory. Batvette understood this when he said If that is the comment of Sept 15 here- Neutrality in Question I think that pretty much sums it up, and I'll add that hardly reflects the beliefs of a "crank", though I guess Loremaster now has labelled me as "reasonable but misguided". It is only because of this comment that I felt obligated to explain to him (as well as any reader of our discussions) the reason why I think he is a crank. That being said, if Batvette is willing to let this go, I will stop calling him a crank in the interest of creating a civil climate on this talk page.
2. You totally misunderstand and are misrepresenting what the (archived) OLD dispute over mentioning the Georgia Guidestones (GG) in this article was about! Batvette claimed that the GG "as good as validate this [NWO] conspiracy theory as dead on fact". The anti-NWO graffiti was never a major issue in that dispute. It was simply more evidence for Batvette that some people connect the GG to the New World Order conspiracy. Therefore he wasn't using Alex Jones as source to include in the article the claim that some people have vandalized the GG with anti-NWO graffiti. He wanted to primarily use Alex Jones as a source for the claim that the GG validates the New World Order conspiracy as dead on fact (prior to the GG being vandalized and even more so after). Since even Jones acknowledged that this claim represents a minority viewpoint even among conspiracy theorists, I and several other editors argued that Jones's online articles and YouTube videos are not reliable sources for such a claim. However, Batvette was right that the Wired magazine article was a reliable source for the claim. However, we still felt, perhaps wrongly, that the GG was still too trivial to be mentioned in this article. That being said, all of this doesn't matter since we finally ended up compromising and I added a mention of the GG in the article. This dispute has obviously been settled for a long time now.
3. The NEW dispute over the GG is only about 2 things: Is someone who makes a connection between the GG and a New World Order conspiracy a crank and/or conspiracy theorist? Batvette says No but reliable sources say Yes. Does Batvette go further than simply claiming that some conspiracy theorists make a connection between the GG and a New World Order conspiracy theory? In other words, does Batvette himself actually believe the GG prove the New World Order/one world government is something that some people desire? Yes he does and that makes him a c-word in my book.
4. Regarding my supposedly nonsensical counter-arguments (which were more quick questions asked out of despair of not being able to understand the non-sense I was being told), I was basing them on the Wired article which stated: the guides on the Georgia stones fly in the face of orthodox Christian eschatology.
5. I am well aware that Rosicrucianism is an extremely popular topic for conspiracy theorists. However, that's exactly my point! Who but a c-word would argue in a rational debate that "the placer of the Stones using the pseudonym R. Christian" alludes to the fact that some Christians believe there will be a population-reducing apocalypse in their lifetimes. It simply doesn't make any sense.
6. Ultimately, Verdatum, not only should your opinion not be taken seriously IF you haven't even taken the time to read the arcticles that are at the center of this dispute but you seem to be bending over backwards to defend the undefendable perhaps because of some misguided sympathy for the underdog in this dispute. Like I said, very disappointing... :/

--Loremaster (talk) 10:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine fine. Moving on, I fail to see how cranks and conspiracy theorists are mutually exclusive. Do you disagree? -Verdatum (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you are trying to get at with this question. Can someone be both a crank and a conspiracy theorist? Yes. Can someone be a crank without being a conspiracy theorist? Yes. Can someone be a conspiracy theorist without being a crank? Yes. That being said, a crank is someone who holds fringe theories no matter what evidence is presented to the contrary. Hmmm... Who does that sound like? --Loremaster (talk) 04:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

We get it, you think he's a crank. You can stop expending keystrokes repeating your position on that particular matter.

I ask In regards to your above point beginning with "The NEW dispute", which I believe you've edited since my post to now say "and/or". (This is why editing your posts after they've been replied to goes against Wikipedia guidelines, as I mentioned above.) (ignore that, my mistake)

Anyhow, good, we agree, people can be both. So do you agree that it's appropriate and beneficial for this article to detail the theories relating the GG and NWO which pass WP:FRINGE? I ask because I believe their current mention in this article could stand to be expanded. -Verdatum (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is appropriate and beneficial for this article to detail the theories relating the GG and NWO which pass WP:FRINGE. However, the article already does this sufficiently in my view in light of the fact that even notable conspiracy theorists, like Alex Jones, argue that a GG/NWO connection is not a belief held by many conspiracy theorists. Furthemore, I don't think mentioning that the GG has been vandalized with poorly-written anti-NWO graffiti (which makes anti-NWO activists look foolish) is necessary or informative. --Loremaster (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me, could you point me to the Alex Jones quote in question once more? All I'm finding is the vandalism article, which merely states that most Americans have never heard of the stones.

I fail to see how the graffiti makes anti-NWO activists look foolish. As I see it, it only makes the vandals themselves look foolish, and even that is only my personal opinion. -Verdatum (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Verdatum, I don't recall where I read Alex Jones' comments exactly but I will try to track it down. However, when I said that the graffiti made anti-NWO activists look foolish, I was refering to the vandals themselves but also the image it gives to their entire movement. Furthemore, I was basing my personal opinion on the comments of two anti-NWO activists posted under the www.prisonplanetcom/georgia-guidestones-vandalized.html Alex Jones' Prison Planet article] you speak of:

“ Winston Smith Says:

December 12th, 2008 at 10:33 am

Perhaps they could have put a little more thought into their vandalism. Crude language, childish spelling errors, and crap like “Obama is a muslim”, will only serve to discredit every other message they wrote. If “mainstream” dared to pick up this story, the first thing they would do is bring up the Obama insult and crude profanity. This smells.

Spencer W. Morgan Reply:

January 12th, 2009 at 12:33 pm

I agree, Winston. I am very sympathetic to the sentiments behind this, but it also makes ant-nwo, constitutionalists look like crude, vulgar thugs.

Maybe this was a false-flag designed to stigmatize us and generate intellectual sympathy for the objectives on the guidestones… hmm.

”

Ah the beautiful mind of a conspiracy theorist... ;) --Loremaster (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's responsibility to protect any group's image; that is not a valid reason to omit verifiable information. The article should not use the act to draw conclusions about NWO conspiracy theorists as a whole, but I believe it still should be discussed in a neutral fashion. -Verdatum (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* I never said we should omit this information to protect a group's image! Why the hell would I want to do that when I am the editor of this article that is the most critical of NWO conspiracy theories/ists? I was simply pointing out that it simply makes no sense for someone who is an anti-NWO activist (or someone who sympathizes with anti-NWO activism) to fight hard to have this information included in this article since it makes them look bad. Nothing more. Nothing less. However, if the GG was ever bombed by anti-NWO activists (as some of them have repeatedly suggested), such an event would definitely rise to level of information worth documenting in this article. So , ultimately, I think it makes far more sense to include this trivial information in the Georgia Guidestones article itself. --Loremaster (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Please remain calm. I was never talking about people's motives for wanting things added or omitted from the article, I'm merely discussing what I believe should be included in the article. So I don't know why you were. But no matter. I can't confirm that the graffiti was placed by anti-NWO activists. However, we do have sources confirming that they are anti-NWO sentiments. I fail to see how this is trivial, and I believe the act should be covered in both articles. -Verdatum (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Verdatum, unlike in my discussions with Ludvikus, I have been and remain perfectly calm during my discussions with you. Just because I use strong language to convey a point doesn't mean I am not calm as I write it. That being said, if you look back, you will see that I brought up the fact that the graffiti on the GG makes anti-NWO activists look foolish in parantheses to downplay it's relevance to the actual debate we were engaged in. However, you seized on this point and turned it into another subject of debate so it forced me to explain that I made this remark as a side note to people like Batvette who might be tempted to fight to have this graffti issue mentioned in the article. Regardless, the Occultism section of the article already mentions that "a few conspiracy theorists are convinced that they are engraved with the New World Order's anti-Christian “Ten Commandments”" so expanding this mention only gives it far more importance than it really has even for anti-NWO conspiracy theorists. And, in light of the great number of things they are far more obsessed about (like the Federal Reserve and the Council on Foreign Relations) and have engaged in far more serious attacks against, badly-written graffiti on an occult momunent that most Americans have never heard of is in fact trivial. --Loremaster (talk) 06:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If there are more serious attacks than this against other issues, they should be mentioned as well. This is not evidence of why this act should be left unmentioned. The fact that most Americans haven't heard of the monument is an invalid argument. The volume of things that most Americans haven't heard of is nearly unfathomable. The act is on topic, it is verifiable, and it is easily integrated into the body of the article. I continue to fail to see why it doesn't belong. -Verdatum (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I shouldn't need to tell you that just because something is verifiable doesn't automatically mean it deserves to be mentioned. And, as I explained, the amount of space we devote to the GG is already too much in my opinion so I think silly graffiti on it is even more trivial. That being said, if other reasonable contributors to this talk page disagree, I will respect the consensus to add a mention. --Loremaster (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Verdatum, I thank you for very accurately representing my points throughout, while of course it can often be presumptuous to assume an argument for someone in this case it was welcome and approached with good intent and execution. To be sure, while one or two statements in the heat of the moment (particularly the "proves as good as fact" line) were made, my mention of the GG was in the light of understanding why people believe what they believe. The stones could be perceived by CT's as, albeit in error, a tangible piece of evidence that would add fuel to their belief, and as such not paranoia based but ignorant. Their concerns may be paranoia if allowed to manifest into beliefs it is real even if exposed to rational arguments but not everyone has a sufficient background in socioeconomics to understand the power structure of America. As well because of the fleeting nature of media their knowledge of the guidestones, and their meaning would be assumed to be distorted or incomplete. They would take the two lines about one language and a world court and not make not care about a distinction that it must say one government. The R Christian issue I approach similarly and merely pursued the mention of millinerian christians as the section began with. Many Christians believe the end of the world is near (what's new?) and there are many splinter factions with varied beliefs, I shouldn't be blamed for taking the most superficial assessment of it. You're really trying to establish that a lot of boneheaded people think the NWO is reality and I can't help but agree- maybe if I am still puzzled it's the insistence everyone without their facts straight is paranoid for making connections when a lot of it is simply, on the finer details at least, bonehead. So the issue may not be my crankiness when frankly I am being educated in the process here as well. You know I'll go off topic as it's fresh on my mind and say here's an example of why I'm probably not- over a year ago in a forum I frequent I brought some talking points that I read others promoting at the time about the Alfred Murrah building bombing. I presented them for discussion, not promotion, wanting to refine my talking points on the matter. My post even finished with "what do you think?" It got ugly, a long time adversary more interested in winning than anything got pretty nasty, in the end I found out what I wanted to know and that was the end of it for me. Today the subject of Waco came up and I said this:Story #6:Alfred Murrah Building in OKC destroyed a year later allegedly by right wing extremist with one accomplice. "John Doe" identified by dozens of eyewitnesses, alleged by conspiracy theorists to be a federal agent who instigated the crime, never found nor actively sought by investigators. A grand jury several years later dismissed nearly all conspiracy theories against the federal gov't as implausible- except for the John Doe aspect which it found credible. (not that John Doe did it but that too many credible witnesses described him and the FBI never closed that issue)The forum is gameFAQs, WOT or war on terrorism board, it requires a level of tenure to access but I can C/P the page, this is as I state. This position contains several points opposite of what I presented a year ago, the adversary angrily tried to regress to my post a year ago and get me to argue it even tho it was never asserted by me then as factual. He never argued against today's position. You see what I am getting at? I left that thread rather disgusted telling him credibility is an opinion that evolves, progresses when one finds facts and adopts them and a year later nobody has to have that argument with him again. (he thinks credibility is getting people to remember an argument a year ago you can misrepresent- silly but that is his M.O.) So while off topic I hope this account which I honestly present should establish that even if I right now said something you could associate with CT beliefs, I do possess the humility and wisdom to recognize a counterpoint somewhere along the line as factual- even at a later date if I found it on my own research, and adjust my beliefs accordingly. If we are locked in aggression that may take longer than we'd both like. You might be surprised to know I have used this sig in some forums- I invite the opportunity to be proven wrong, for I will be educated about something I did not know. I concurr the Guidestones matter is probably no longer a dispute and see apparantly you may agree with Verdatum it could be expanded a bit? Perhaps to explain to CT's why the connnection has flaws? I am also impressed you were able to solicit a comment from Domhoff, and will leave a short comment later to acknowledge and perhaps end that matter. Spending considerable time in Santa Cruz at various points in my life, and being born in San Jose, I feel a curious geographical connection every time he comes up. (see "lost boys" Santa Carla)Batvette (talk) 08:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Batvette, even though I am willing to believe you are able to adjust some (but not all) of your beliefs, I don't think you are being honest about your initial beliefs about the GG. Let's look at the archives:

“ Could you please explain what you mean by claiming that the Georgia Guidestones validate this conspiracy theory as dead on fact? Dougweller (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I read them. One world government. Pursued in secrecy by some shady people with visions of grandeur. Please do not assume I will engage a position of willful ignorance as serious, or forget that I said "as good as" fact. Batvette (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

”

That being said, I consider this dispute settled and, contrary to what you might think now, I am opposed to expanding the mention of the GG in the article because I still believe that it is nothing more than NWO conspiracist trivia. If we are to expand anything in the Occultism section, it should be the notion of an "occult conspiracy" starting with the Gnostics and ending with the Illuminati since it is a far more popular theme in most NWO conspiracy theories. --Loremaster (talk) 08:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality in Question

PLEASE CONSIDER: Personally, I question the implications of this article, and don't know that it really qualifies as "neutral" at all. Now that we have so many open advocates of NWO, should it really be prefaced as a conspiracy theory and thrown in the mix with things most would deem nonsensical? At one time it was an absurdity, but now that there are actually people pushing for one world government, I think it is horribly miscategorized. It should be expressed as a concept, not a conspiracy theory.

I'm not an advocate myself, I find the idea terrifying and impractical. I certainly wouldn't want people to read this, and as a result laugh of NWO or OWG as impossible lunacy and turn a blind eye to the issue. That's how ignorance is bred, and we should be promoting awareness instead.

I just wanted to bring attention to this and see if anyone else had a similar perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.128.55 (talk) 07:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Please cite the many people who openly advocate for one-world government (while keeping in mind that the term "new world order" doesn't necessarily mean "one-world government"). --Loremaster (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a nonsensical reply and not at all what the concern is, which is exactly what mine was. The article, while certainly having a professional appearance, still seeks to ridicule beliefs in any tangible movement of corporate/government entities to consolodate power globally and neutralize democratic power of individuals to the detriment of humanity. While I may be on the same page with you that it's not a "conspiracy theory" and simply the socio-economic theory of "empire" between the lead of this page and the disambiguation of "New World Order" it still leaves the reader with a choice of "haha, you must believe in Aliens too!" or the "nothing to see here, move along" presentation of the NWO political page. It is interesting that this potential editor asks I just wanted to bring attention to this and see if anyone else had a similar perspective. when many have expressed the same concern in comments within the last year but have been sent into archives as if they were old news or sufficiently addressed. As the page has been improved but still has much of the same tone, I'm not sure it has. What the article does actually is reinforce conspiracy theories in the method of its content in raising each rationale and shoot down its foundation, and in many sections does so less than credibly- such as the industrial surveillance section, which purports to compare the masses being fitted with RFID chip implants with the invention of the printing press. Anyone should be insulted that this should make them walk away thinking oh, okay, it's not happening then.Batvette (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Batvette, there is nothing nonsensical about my reply. An anonymous user claims that there are now so many open advocates of a New World Order in the sense of a One World Government. As the article explains, the open advocates of NWO (such as Gordon Brown and Henry Kissinger) have NEVER and are NOT advocating establishing a one-world government! They are simply advocating a reform of the dysfunctional global financial system. Regardless of whether or not such reform would only benefit the transnational capitalist class while continuing the exploitation of workers worldwide, this is a far cry from the bureaucratic collectivist one-world government envisioned by many conspiracy theorists when they use the term "New World Order". I don't know how many times I have to explain this to you until it sinks in but this article is ONLY about paranoid conspiracy theories about a New World Order. IF you are interested in documenting the "tangible movement of corporate/government entities to consolodate power globally and neutralize democratic power of individuals to the detriment of humanity" in a rational manner while basing all your claims on the works of political scientists like William I. Robinson (see his essay Towards a Global Ruling Class: Globalization and the Transnational Capitalist Class) there are more appropriate articles on Wikipedia where this can be done. For example, it might be a good idea to expand the Superclass article or create a Global power elite article.

As for your repeated accusation that the takeaway from this article is "nothing to see here, move along", I'm not sure how you can say that if you have read and understood the last paragraph of the Alleged conspirators section of the article. No one is denying that governments and corporations are involved in doing things that are both unethical and illegal, such as NSA warrantless surveillance, but "the masses being fitted with RFID chip implants" is a perfect example of an unfounded fear that conspiracy theorists are hysterical about. I'm not trying to ridicule this belief but I am trying to refute it. Do you understand? [...]

Regardless, in light of your criticism, I've actually improved the Surveillance-industrial complex section of the article. --Loremaster (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You have a good point (when you refer to Robinson) and I would offer that somehow within the wiki protocol you need to find a way to send people who, out of ignorance or paranoia, come to this page, and lead them to a route of education on socio-economics (or at least the terminology within) on the theories that they possibly misconstrued to be an NWO/CT. Interestingly enough, if you look at my very first comment on this article, you will see I made a big deal about labels, and how getting wrapped up in affixing them can be so problematic. If I complain about "Empire" or "Transnational or Global Ruling Classes" you aren't going to call me a crank, but if I'm trying to express the same concerns and people around me keep referring to the "New World Order" something they don't like, you are. That's half my problem- there ARE changes going on, people are rightfully apprehensive, can we steer them toward progressive information? The other part of my concern, which keeps leading to the "nothing to see here" comment, is the way you treat real groups like CFR, etc, as being entities that are entirely benign, place all their business out in the public view for all to see, and have no agenda. This is not to be misconstrued as me thinking CFR or the like is creating one world government or is bent to rule the world. However look at the explanation you give as to why they can't- 3,000 is too many to keep a secret-?huh? they publish reports and an annual statement- so? That really is a weak "rebuttal" so to speak and doesn't address the reality that these groups do have agenda for their own benefit and their very existence is so that corporate and government entities can cooperate on self serving issues, and they don't (no do they have to)put that stuff in their yearly reports. I will concede that these "concerns" are hardly something you would be expected to revamp the article over. Maybe they wouldn't have even been enough to make me comment in the first place if the tone of the article didn't seem so mocking of people's somewhat legitimate concerns. Hope this clarified a little. Batvette (talk) 14:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

We finally seem to be getting somewhere...

1. The problem isn't simply one of terminology. Whether one uses terms like "New World Order", "Empire", "global ruling class", "transnational capitalist class", "superclass", "global power elite", "global governance" or "world government", the issue is whether or not one is properly defining these terms and using them in arguments that reflect a socioeconomic theory of history or a conspiratorial theory of history. In other words, there is difference between someone who says "a transnational capitalist class (TCC) has emerged as that segment of the world bourgeois that represents transnational capital, the owners of the leading worldwide means of production as embodied in the transnational corporations and private financial institutions. This TCC is a global ruling class" and someone whos says "sinister figures and secret societies are nefariously conspiring behind the scenes to create a Stalinist one-world government".
2. You are correct when you say that "there ARE changes going on". As the Alleged Conspirators section of the article explains, the changes reflect the implementation of global capitalism through economic and military coercion to protect the interests of transnational corporations. However, they do NOT reflect the obviously ludicrous notion that rich capitalists are conspiracing to create a socialist one-world government. Anyone who disagrees is simply incapable of understanding the changes going on either because of a right-wing bias or conspiratorial mindset.
3. There are no Wikipedia guidelines which requires this article to steer readers toward "progressive" information. The sole duty of editors of a Wikipedia article on New World Order conspiracism is to ensure that it is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.
4. No one is arguing that entities like the CFR are entirely benign. However, as the quote of Domhoff in the article clearly explains, "the opponents are the corporate conservatives and the Republican Party, not the Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderbergers, and Bohemians. It is the same people more or less, but it puts them in their most important roles, as capitalists and political leaders, which are visible and legitimate. If thought of this way, then the role of a CFR as a place to try to hear new ideas and reach consensus is more readily understood, as is the function of a social club as a place that creates social cohesion. Moreover, those understandings of the CFR and the clubs fit with the perceptions of the members of the elite."
5. No offense but I think you are so obsessed with the notion that the CFR is up to no good that it makes you unable to appreciate a rebuttal which you would have accepted in a different context. No one is denying that the CFR, like any private group, has secrets that the public will never find out. However, as any counter-terrorism expert will tell you, any criminal conspiracy that involves more than 2 people runs the risks of failure due to leaks or infiltrations. So the notion that 3000 people could keep secret a grand conspiracy to take over the world without there being a single whistleblower (especially when we know this group has different factions that vehemently disagree with each other) is absurd.
6. I never understood why you insist on portraying rebuttals as "ridiculing" the beliefs of conspiracy theorists. There is a difference between criticism and ridicule and I think the article has always had a strongly critical yet respectful tone.
7. By the way, just because 100 people think this article is not "neutral", it doesn't matter if they can all be shown to be wrong and they have been. --Loremaster (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

1. The distinction is do we wish to be cute and condescending and portray the historical, current and future machinations of the rich and powerful to be "a conspiracy" to be laughably dismissed as paranoia, with the absurd notion that all their plans were public knowledge and never privately held- or do we wish to simply accept the reality that they like anyone look out for themselves and make agreements with like minded contemporaries that never make the newspapers.
2. this is again a case of you wishing to define what the conspiracy is and if you can ridicule any notion of your own narrowly defined conspiracy, it is so. I believe I stated much earlier my own belief concerned capitalists duping a socialist movement that they would be creating an illusion of the socialist utopia they sought, to pacify their concerns and even get them to work with them- when the capitalists would remain capitalist as hell while allowing this false socialism to keep the masses happy. It is anything but capitalist leaders seeking a socialist world.
3. The goal of wiki is to provide the vehicle for the free exchange of information. I believe this includes steering those with a desire to learn toward the information they seek, and I would challenge anyone to run that by the top of Wiki admin for philosophical accuracy. (note when I said "progressive" I did not mean leftist but constructive toward the knowledge base of the individual.) I believe in this case someone believes wiki is to pursue the vanity of personal accolades in encyclopedia authoring, your pointed reply supports that.
4. Domhoff again engages in the doublespeak which makes me question either his real motivations, his relevance or gravity in these issues, or a bit of both. This really goes back to point number one. In any case your treatment in the article of CFR is to reduce them to a benevolent entity with full disclosure and little influence on policy.
5. I am not obsessed with CFR at all It was however a point in the article that jumped out when I first saw it, having read Shoup's analysis which you really still haven't given equal time to in the article. Domhoff may be one of the premier authorities on socioeconomics or the elite but on the singular matter has he written a whole book and many other pieces on the CFR? Was any of his work cited on CFR's site as "the most important critical analysis of our organization"? I think Shoup is the authority on CFR, not Domhoff by any means, yet you let Domhoff dismiss Shoup for all practical purposes and I believe this is a point where you reveal the lack of neutrality so many have complained about. I brought you a supremely sourced viewpoint on that compartmental issue and you barely expressed Shoup's side at all. I don't claim CFR is seeking a one world government and insisting you have misportrayed their influence does NOT make me a CT. I do however wonder if you got this one so wrong how many others are misrepresented as well?
6. the tone of the article is, in some areas, well, "smarmy". 'Nuff said.
7. Saying you proved someone wrong does not make it so. In many cases your arguments are sound, I speak from experience in observing they sometimes are not. Batvette (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

1. The problem is that there is a difference between the historical, current, and future secret machinations of the rich and powerful to maintain the status quo and to make as much money as they can (which are often exposed and criticized by liberal, progressive, socialist and/or Marxist journalists and academics) and the paranoid conspiracy theories which portray these people as being, or controlled by, Freemasons, the Illuminati, Elders of Zion, New Agers, Nazis or alien overlords bent on creating a totalitarian world government. As I've told you a million times, this article is only about such conspiracies. If you want to document the real machinations of power elite, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE!
2. I'm not the one defining the conspiracy. I am repeating the opinion of journalists such as Chip Berlet and academics such as Michael Barkun who have documented what conspiracy theorists believe. Putting aside your non-sensical notion that any rational socialist could be fooled into believing that rich capitalists want to create a global socialist utopia (LMAO), what you fail to understand is that what you think does NOT matter here! We can only report what reliable sources tell us about the beliefs of a majority of American right-wing conspiracy theorists who truly believe that rich capitalists are crypto-socialists conspiring to create a socialist one-world government.
3. Feel free to run your dubious ideas about the goal of Wikipedia to any administrator you find and get back to us. That being said, since I use a pseudonym rather than my real name, whatever accolades I get here don't mean much in the real world. On the contrary, I only get my satisfaction from knowing that articles I edited have become the most fair and accurate resource for anyone (e.g. students, journalists, cultural critics) who is interested in the subject they treat.
4. Since you have never been able to even understand Domhoff's basic arguments, forgive me for not taking seriously your judgement of his motivations, relevance or gravity. That being said, regardless of whether or not the CFR has tremendous or little influence on American foreign policy, the only thing that matters in a New World Order conspiracy theory article is that the CFR is not the SPECTRE-like organization that conspiracy theorists make it out to be.
5. What you again fail to understand is that this article is not about the CFR. It is only about how the CFR is perceived by NWO conspiracy theorists. Regardless of whether or not Shoup and Domhoff disagree about the extent of the influence of the CFR, nothing Shoup says supports the wildest claims made NWO conspiracy theorists. In other words, do Shoup and NWO conspiracy theorists agree that the CFR is extremely influential? Yes. Do Shoup and NWO conspiracy theorists agree that the CFR is bent on creating a socialist one-world government? OF COURSE NOT! Therefore, it would be extremely misleading to give more time to Shoup's analysis (which you are free to include and expand in the Council on Foreign Relations article as much as you want) in order to intentionally or unintentionally give the false impression that NWO conspiracy theories about the CFR are valid. That being said, I stand by my portrayal of the CFR as being fair and accurate even if it is not comprehensive enough to your satisfaction and I've thanked you in the past for suggesting that I should include a concise summary of Shoup's analysis in the article. FYI: Domhoff has written books and pieces that extensively analyze the role of the CFR in the American power structure. I suggest you actually read them before dismissing his opinions and questioning his motivations.
6. I have never argued that you claim the CFR is seeking a one world government nor have I argued that your insisting that I have supposedly misportrayed their influence makes you a conspiracy theorist. However, I do believe that, like conspiracy theorists, you seem to confuse CFR's advocacy of super-imperialism for something similar to a NWO conspiracy when it isn't. That being said, what you think the CFR is seeeking is NOT important nor relevant to this article. What matters is that a great many NWO conspiracy theorists believe the CFR is seeking one world government. Do you understand?
7. Even if you were right that the tone of the article is, in some areas, "smarmy", it is simply reflecting the "smarmy" tone of the arguments found in reliable sources, who tend to be far less diplomatic than I have.
8. The vast majority of people who have complained that this article is supposedly not neutral never brought up your beef with how the CFR is portrayed. Their common complaint stems from their absolute convinction that the New World Order conspiracy is a fact not a theory. Therefore, it is obvious that they would automatically accuse this article of not being neutral simply because of its title let alone its skeptical content! That being said, since my experience with you has convinced me of your occasionally poor reasoning skills, forgive me for not taking seriously your opinion about the soundness of my arguments. ;)

--Loremaster (talk) 06:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The only necessary reply is to copy and paste this- Their common complaint stems from their absolute convinction that the New World Order conspiracy is a fact not a theory. Therefore, it is obvious that they would automatically accuse this article of not being neutral simply because of its title let alone its skeptical content! And refer to the opening comment of this section. Did he say what you portray his sentiment to be? No, I don't think so at all. As you've done to me repeatedly, you have to distort and pervert his position into something extreme so you can stand back and say "oh, he's an extremist/crank, so I won't take him seriously, and he can't touch my article". I will add though that it sounds like you think you can misportray the influence of CFR as long as it can't be shown to be working toward a one world government. Not only did CFR issue a report promoting the North American union, this is again the "nothing to see here" flippant way the whole article appears. By portraying it as a benign or even benevolent group that only has open policy discussions for all to see, when people who know otherwise read that it makes the whole article a slap in the face. (note I already proved to you an incident where an energy policy paper was kept secret and was later implemented by Cheney) Additionally about the 3000 people keeping a secret,that displays ignorance of the reality that CFR has distinct factions within. See Shoup's analysis of the Bush/Kerry election,he goes into detasil that even within factions there are factions. Will a dozen or two CFR members keep a secret? I think so. Batvette (talk) 12:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow... Batvette, I'm almost speechless. You are so caught up in this obsession to prove that I'm of bad faith that you are willing to both distort/pervert my position as well as deny reality to the point that you are simply embarrasing yourself. Your cut-and-paste of my words perfectly describes the position of an anonymous user who 1) claims there are now so many open advocates of NWO in the sense of a one world government (which is not true) and 2) suggested that this article should not be in the conspiracy theory category (which it obviously should be). Furthermore, I never said he is an extremist or a crank nor I have said that I don't take him seriously or that he can't touch the article. I was simply explaining to you that he is among the people who are wrong when they say the article is not neutral therefore is it pointless of you to keep using people like him as evidence that you are not the only person who has problems with this article. Regardless, I have NOT misportrayed the CFR. I reported a portrait made by Domhoff, a notable academic who has studied and commented on the CFR extensively. When you made me aware of Shoup's portrait, I included a concise summary of it in the article so your accusation of "misportrayal" has not been valid for a long time. That being said, by bringing up the North American Union proposal as a rebuttal to my argument that the CFR is not seeking a one-world government, you are further exposing yourself as someone unable to approach this subject from an objective perspective.

1. As Joshua Holland's article Debunking the North American Union Conspiracy Theory explains, the North American Union (NAU) is an idealistic but unrealistic proposal that has not and probably will never be implemented.
2. There is nothing inherently malign or benign about a North American Union. A judgement either way only reflects a political point of view. That being said, an NAU is not automatically a first step towards a world government. One can be pro-NAU but anti-NWO while one can also be anti-NAU but pro-NWO. As the last paragraph of the Gradualism section of article explains quite well, regionalism rather than global governance will be the major force in international relations in the coming decades.
3. Although it may have happened, I don't recall any conversation we have had about Cheney's energy task force. Regardless, you seem confused. No one is disputing that the government (especially when it comes to issues of national security) keeps secrets. However, the CFR is not the government! Although the CFR may have secrets like any private group does, it is a think tank that has shown a significant degree of transparency. The only point that scholars like Domhoff are arguing that it is simply ridiculous to believe that a group like the CFR would be able to hide a secret plan to take over the world and enslave the masses using methods one would associate with a James-Bond-film villain. So not only is your analogy a bad one but, ironically, it proves that secrets always do come out at some point!
4. The point about factions that you do not seem to be able to understand is that it is ridiculous to say that the CFR as a group is conspiring to do XYZ since obviously there are factions within the CFR that would be opposed to the conspiracy. So it would be more accurate to say that a small faction within the CFR is conspiring to do XYZ. A conspiracy theorist may be too obtuse to grasp this but those are two entirely different propositions, which are like the differences between saying that "the entire LAPD is involved a protection racket" and "a dozen or two LAPD officers are involved in a protection racket". Do you understand?
5. Ultimately, you are missing the point that Domhoff is trying to make which is that the CFR is NOT involved in a secret plan to create a socialist one-world government. Even it were proven that the CFR does in fact support the notion of a one-world government, it should be obvious that it would be a capitalist one-world government not a socialist one. And you can rest assured that they won't resort to secret plans to try to make it happen. On the contrary, they will openly call for it in the same way they have when they advocated for a NAU. The fact that we are even arguing about the CFR's NAU proposal (which you have to acknowledge they never kept secret) is PROOF of that very point! Take a deep breath and think about that fact for a moment... :)

--Loremaster (talk) 11:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

My view of the arguments on all sides:

• The original concern put forth at the beginning of this topic has been addressed. The user misunderstood the scope of this article.
• I fail to see how the reality of the CFR's actions effects this article. All that matters is documenting what has been verifiably claimed to be in some way related to the NWO as the term is used within the realm of conspiracy theory (ideally through secondary sources). Discussing the matter in any other direction is off-topic, and if it continues, I'll consider deleting such comments from this talkpage.
• There very well could be some smarminess in the writing. Anyone is welcome to attempt to rewrite it to reduce this. WP:BOLD is the way to go on such things. Ungood edits will be further improved upon, or undone if improvement is unfeasible.
• Obviously, there's nothing wrong with the article relaying verifiable smarmy sentiments. However (speaking abstractly), sometimes it is the case that we are only interested in capturing a source's logical arguments, or research on a matter. In these cases, their statements can be neutralized by only relaying the evidence given by the source, and leaving behind whatever smarmy conclusions are drawn. -Verdatum (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Verdatum, I encourage you to be a bit skeptical of accusations of some "smarminess" in the writing of this article. Although I'm not necessarily including Batvette in this group, many people who believe in New World Order conspiracy theories want to suppress any critical language in the article that portrays New World Order conspiracy theorists as being "far-right", "right-wing", "radical", "extremist", "fanatical" or, worse of all, "paranoid" because they want to turn this article in the most effective vehicle for the uncritical promotion of New World Order conspiracy theories in light of Wikipedia's popularity and relative credibility.

That being said, although I agree with you that discussing the CFR's actions is not relevant to a discussion about how to improve the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article, I would appreciate some leeway from you because I think if Batvette and I are able to discuss this issue to it's logical conclusion I might finally be able to help him overcome his cognitive bias which is at the source of our never-ending disputes. --Loremaster (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Batvette, in order to resolve this dispute, a colleague of mine contacted Domhoff. You can read his reply in a section below. --Loremaster (talk) 07:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

G. William Domhoff's comments on the Council on Foreign Relations

A colleague of mine contacted G. William Domhoff to ask him to review the article and comment on the dispute concerning it's portrayal of the CFR. Here is his entire reply:

“ Thanks for your note and glad you have found my work useful. I cannot bring myself to look at anything about conspiracies because it is too depressing, but I can comment on the CFR and its role.

The three places of power in the USA, all with money and decision-making authority, are the corporations, the foundations, and the government. The CFR is a place where powerful people from these organizations meet to discuss general policies and to learn from specialists on given issues. It is also a place where people see if they are suited for government service. In that sense, it is a training grounds.

Some members of the CFR end up working for government officials or taking high-level appointments in government. They are offered these positions because they have the power of corporations and foundations behind them, have given donations to politicians, have expertise from being in the CFR, and have status from being in the CFR.

Looked at in this way, the CFR can be both a discussion group and much of what my friend Larry Shoup says it is, although his highly original work, for which you may recall I wrote a long forward, was diluted by the mechanical Marxism of his co-author, William Minter. Then, too, Larry's effort to meld his work in with Minter's, while Minter was on to other things, was not altogether successful. For that reason, I often cite Larry's dissertation rather than the book.

Also, I brought up to date and extended Larry's fine work in a chapter in my 1990 book, The Power Elite and The State. I think it shows that the CFR is a very important discussion group.

Finally, I would note that Larry hardly emphasizes the CFR. He is a Marxist who emphasizes, and in my view, probably over-emphasizes, the importance of capitalists. Capitalism as a system and capitalists as the most powerful people in the country come first for him. The CFR is, yes, a mere discussion group and training grounds, even for him.

”

--Loremaster (talk) 07:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Proof?

How can you prove that something does not exist? Whether the illuminati do or do not exist, to say that someone "wrongly believes" in the illuminati, in God, or even in the Easter Bunny is totally unempirical. --No Account Yet, 21:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.214.57 (talk)

1. Based on the empirical record, the consensus among historians is that the Illuminati ceased to exist after it was disbanded by the Bavarian government in the 18th century. The burden of proof is therefore on revisionist historians (who could be right) and conspiracy theorists (who are usually wrong) who claim that the Illuminati continue to exist.
2. That being said, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. If you can find a reliable source that claims that the Illumimati still exist and are conspiring to rule the world, the article will be edited accordingly. Until then, we report what all reliable sources tell us, which is the opposite.

--Loremaster (talk) 07:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, since I have feeling that true believers will never stop trying to edit the caption to remove the word "wrongly" and I don't want to keep having to revert them, I've decided to replaced the phrase "wrongly believe" with "speculate". However, the word "misinterpret" will remain. --Loremaster (talk) 01:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI: On the subject of the Illuminati, I suggest you read the following:

1. A Bavarian Illuminati primer compiled by Trevor W. McKeown
2. The European Illuminati by Vernon L. Stauffer Ph.D.

--Loremaster (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Picking verbs in situations like that can be very difficult. It's somewhat covered at WP:Words to avoid. Because NWO conspiracy theorists are an amorphous group, it's one of the situations where some level of weasel words are inevitable. If you want to explicitly point out that a belief is wrong, you should probably do so in a separate, following statement, that includes a reference to a concrete logical proof countering the belief, to which they have no sound rebuttal (not even an improbable one). Unfortunately, such attempts generally force conspiracy theorists into an unfalsifiable argument. So the alternative is to use a softer term than "wrong". For example, stating the belief to be "misinformed", "unsubstantiated", "counter-intuitive", or just "countered". And again, backing it with a source. -Verdatum (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Verdatum, I was already aware of all of that and I agree. However, I am simply summarizing what our sources state quite clearly:

“ Evidence would suggest that the Bavarian Illuminati was nothing more than a curious historical footnote. Certainly, this is the opinion of masonic writers. Conspiracy theorists though, are not noted for applying Occam’s razor and have decided that there are connections between the Illuminati, Freemasonry, the Trilateral Commission, British Emperialism, International Zionism and communism (if you read the writings of Alberto Rivera and Jack T. Chick of Chino California), that all lead back to the Vatican (or if David Icke is to be believed, the British house of Windsor and extra-terrestrial lizard people) in a bid for world domination. Believe what you will but there is no evidence that any Illuminati survived its founders. ”

So I consider this dispute over. --Loremaster (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Federal Reserve conspiracy theory section?

I'm wondering if we should create a Federal Reserve conspiracy theory section in the article. The Fed has always been a favorite villain of the American far-right but, in part due to movies like Zeitgeist, some on the far-left have also become obessesed with it in the context of their legitimate criticism of “banksters”. We would have to explore it's partial origins in the “international Jewish banking conspiracy theory” and Dr. Edward Flaherty's essay Debunking Federal Reverse conspiracy theories would obviously be extremely useful when formulating a rebuttal.

Any thoughts? --Loremaster (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Depends on whether there are RS relating the two topics. It's quite obvious some NWO-theorists believe the FED at the heart of the conspiracy, but has a scientist or journalist written on them yet? 85.181.253.45 (talk) 12:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Political scientist Micheal Barkun and investigative reporter Chip Berlet, who are the primary reliable sources for the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article, have written on them. So the only issue is whether or not Federal Reserve/NWO conspiracy is important enough to merit it's own section. --Loremaster (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Criticism from the empty set

Couldn't we do better in the criticism section than leading with a quote invoking inference from the empty set?

Since these claims have proved wrong dozens of times by now, it makes more sense to assume that leaders act for their usual reasons, such as profit-seeking motives and institutionalized roles as elected officials.

"It hasn't happened yet" worked just great in the banking sector (and there was no shortage of failure predictions, here, either, until the stopped clock struck midnight). Are we just playing on the cartoon meme here that the power mad are necessarily short of impulse control? I sometimes refer to this as the "sharp event fallacy" which the phrase "peak oil" captures with enviable concision. (From my own contact with the oil patch I suggest it's going to be a long wavering decline, more like squeezing an increasingly large number of lemons that haven't got much left to give.) If the secret levers of power are serving you well, why ruin it by tipping your hand? Because the sharp event gods so dictate?

I've been listening to lectures in economics lately. Munger on Middlemen | EconTalk | Library of Economics and Liberty, which is not my favourite by any stretch, caused me to think about how middle-men (in this context the example is trade) bust their haunches to make a decent living—which plays well to the Hayakian analysis for as long as it lasts—while in the back of their minds, the real pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is middle-men 2.0: trade as cartel. I think small conspiracies of this nature are taking place all the time. OTOH, not seeing much evidence myself that there's one leviathan to rule them all, without any recourse whatsoever to inference from the empty set to quell my suspicions. MaxEnt (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

To answer your first question: No. We cannot do better because the quote, regardless of whether or not it will remain true in the future, is based on an extremely pertinent reliable source. That being said, the fact that conspiracy theorists are always absolutely certain that a UN takeover of the US is imminent yet never happens proves that not only are their predictive skills poor but that their general outlook flies in the face of everything we know about the world in general and the UN in particular. This makes any reasonable observer conclude that such a hostile takeover is not only unlikely but improbable if not impossible. Furthermore, I suggest you read Domhoff's essay in it's entirety in order get fully appreciate the quote: There Are No Conspiracies --Loremaster (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia can not and should not try to be a crytal ball. As long as RS state the NWO is BS, wikipedia does. Once there is a serious consensus that Illuminati, Aliens, the Bilderbergers, Freemasons, Aliens or Reptiloids are trying to take over the world, wikipedia will report on it. As it stands, NWO-theorists have been consistently wrong and wikipedia cannot guess they will ever be right, not without sources. 134.106.199.128 (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Why all the weasel words?

My biggest concern is that you state the David Rockefeller quote from his autobiography "Memoirs" should be partially construed as sarcasm, which part is sarcasm? Can you cite any sources that it is indeed partially sarcasm, or is this merely your opinion? Also sarcasm(especially partial sarcasm) does not really imply it is untrue as it seems you would like for it to imply. The quote does show Rockefeller has some nutty ambitions(in my opinion) but I would never word it like that in an article.

Furthermore, under the HG Wells "New World Order" quote, you refer to 'both supporters and opponents'. Now I do not know if you personally look up to David Rockefeller, but I do not feel any particular allegiance to him and would not sacrifice my skepticism just to make him look good in a wiki article. The fact is, David Rockefeller has some pretty nutty ideas, and he has been an outspoken proponent of global government and depopulation for much of his long life. I ask you then, are the so-called 'elite' somehow exempt from being just as nutty as the conspiracy theorists? Does his money and influence matter? Paranoia, delusions of grandeur, dementia, utopian/dystopian fantasies; None of these things really obey our preconceptions of class, wealth, or influence.(Howard Hughes would be a perfect example.)

Please do not misunderstand, I do not believe Rockefeller's ambitions are founded in reality, I feel they have no chance of success, but the fact he does believe these things are a matter of public record several times over. I posit it only hurts our position as skeptics to try to sweep Rockefeller's 'moonbattery' under the proverbial rug. Perhaps your article should reflect the facts about David Rockefeller?

Also, I'm not sure which authors the maintainers of this page, or G. William Dumhoff, have been reading, but I have not really evidenced this shift of blame from the Soviet Union to the United Nations which is referenced in this article. Indeed the earliest founders of these types of conspiracy theories, such as the John Birch Society, have long held that the League of Nations and United Nations were/are bureaucratic bodies whose only real intention was/is to be used as a vehicle for an incrementalist "One World Government" foundation.

(This is my first talk page contribution so please bear with me if I've done something incorrect, but I do know this article is slanted in the extreme. I consider myself a skeptic, but the neutrality of this article is compromised on several points, even from a 'rational skeptical perspective'.) SkepticWon (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

1. There are no weasel words in this article.
2. You are correct that we haven't provided a source for the claim that Rockefeller's quote is partially sarcastic. I will fix that. You should know that it is partly based on an 19 October 2009 email conversation between a colleague of mine and political scientist Michael Barkun in which the latter said: "I think it’s partly tongue-in-cheek (the part about “conspiring”) and partly serious – the desire to encourage cooperation among the US, Europe, and Japan, for example – the sort of thing that used to be a hallmark of the internationalist wing of the Republican Party when there was an internationalist wing."
3. As a social critic, I obviously do NOT look up to Rockfeller. However, I do believe that pseudoskeptics such as yourself grossly MISinterpret what his ambitions are. He does not advocate a socialist world government like the one envisioned by HG Wells nor does he advocate massive depopulation. What he does support is global governance and possibly some form of Chinese-style mandated population control in countries of the global south, which is far from "nutty".
4. You may have a point about the John Birch Society and the Liberty Lobby. I'll move their mention to a section above.
5. Your first contribution to this talk page was fine but I get annoyed when newcomers insist on claiming that the the neutrality of the article is compromised. 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.
6. That being said, thank you for making me make some minor improvements to the article.

--Loremaster (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I can only presume you referred to me as a pseudoskeptic because I did not offer sources regarding David Rockefeller's ongoing and public support of depopulation? To me this doesn't require much skepticism, if I hear you say you think the world is flat, I will assume you really do think that - I can take you at your word because gathering the empirical evidence would take too long and for too little gain. Here is a YouTube link, the poster's motivations I cannot defend, but raw video is raw video. Yes it might be contrary to capitalism, to want to reduce the world's consumers, but Rockefeller has maintained his depopulist position for longer than I've been alive. I can only guess at how this meshes with his entrepreneurial roots. I can cite more sources, including multiple articles David Rockefeller wrote, regarding depopulation, if you are interested.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClqUcScwnn8

As for the lack of neutrality, this methodology may be acceptable to Wikipedia, but it's not doing me any favors in my vain attempt to educate my brother as to WHY, exactly, the "New World Order" isn't real. He called the article a 'shill piece' (I believe that means he thinks you are employed to keep secrets or discredit via disinformation,) And he thinks the division of data between the two primary New_World_Order wiki articles also suspect. And I have to concede to him the point that data exists which would require some crossover between the aforementioned wiki articles, such as the inclination of certain figures associated with the conspiracy theory, also publicly advocating depopulation (Such as Rockefeller and Kissinger.) He believes the prose of the article as well as the segregation of certain data between the two articles is suspect, and that it is not a fair assessment to lump aliens in with population control. He further believes it suspect that myriad world leaders and every POTUS since Bush Sr. (including Obama) publicly calling for or hailing the "New World Order" would be segregated in a politics article. He has other concerns but I've informed him he can make his own comments if he cares that much about it. This isn't your problem of course, but knowing the perceptions of wiki users may help to alleviate your frustrations, and give you insight into why so many visitors to this article find it suspect.

SkepticWon (talk) 00:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

1. I referred to you as a pseudoskeptic because you have said too many things that indicate you may in fact be a conspiracy theorist. ;)
2. Forgive me if I missed something but I didn't hear anything in that video (which is quite sensible and even surprisingly progressive!) that can be interpreted as advocating depopulation! By the way, you do realize there is a huge difference between "population control" and "depopulation", right?
3. Whenever someone accuses me of being employed by the CIA or some other boogeyman to "keep secrets" or "discredit via disinformation", I laugh because not only am I nothing more than an unemployed college student in political sciences who has taken up conspiracy-theory debunking as a hobby but it is absolute proof to me that conspiracy theorists are in fact paranoid! :)
4. As for the division of data between two articles, there is nothing suspect since one is about how the term "new world order" is used in international politics and the other is about how it is used in conspiracy theory. If you someone can't or refuses to understand the need for such a division, I can't help them.
5. It is completely fair to lump aliens with population control (even if this isn't done as closely as you seem to suggest) since many conspiracy theorists do! So let me repeat myself: This article is about what reliable sources tell us prominent conspiracy theorists believe. Whatever "more reasonable" conspiracy theory about the New World Order you cling to is not important nor relevant here.
6. I don't really care what your brother thinks if he is unwilling or incapable of articulating his criticisms on this talk page himself. But I do appreciate knowing the perceptions conspiracy theorists have of this article in order to improve the criticisms contained in the article. So thank you.

--Loremaster (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

1. I'm a truth seeker, there's a big difference, I've been dealing with this particular conspiracy theory for awhile, so I know that a few aspects of it does in fact contain some granules of truth, as such I'll gladly find you a newspaper article or two written by David Rockefeller where he promotes his ideas on depopulation.
2. I don't personally see much of a difference between population control and depopulation, one is an aspect of the other. You are aware the United Nations has been caught performing compulsory sterilizations, right?
3. I try to convince my brother that the guys following him around are probably the result of his associations with his shady druggie friends, but he just won't listen.
4. Part of the conspiracy theory is inexorably linked to international politics. The exclusion of all the 'verifiable data' in that regard implies intentional segregation, which makes sense if you're out to discredit the possibility, which since it's named conspiracy theory would imply that, however I personally cannot fault you for the overall article as some of the covered conspiracies are clearly more 'theoretical' than others.
5. I don't cling to that particular conspiracy theory as you suggest, but in my research I do know there are aspects of the conspiracy theory which are true, there are multiple secret organizations such as the Bilderberg Group, and some of their members do advocate things like global government and depopulation, this is no doubt why you have such a huge archive of protesters for this article. As for the aliens conspiracy theory, I've very rarely seen that and I believe people take such exception to that because there's zero data to suggest aliens, and, well, greater than zero data to suggest a conspiracy involving one world government and/or depopulation.
6. I can't blame you there :-)

Additionally, I've suggested he expound on the (politics) page to reflect the CRU scandal, the Copenhagen 'agreement', adding references to all the secret societies known to exist and their links to prominent political figures. While there is a great tendency of theorists to latch on to all available data, there are also very worrisome storm clouds on the horizon which echo elements of the New World Order conspiracy theory, like the global carbon tax and cap & trade derivatives fraud (If you're unaware of these things, you can watch Gore speaking to Congress about them via CSPAN footage.) BTW I have to say, anyone who would write an article titled 'There are no conspiracies' isn't very credible. Of course there are conspiracies, Tuskegee really stands out as an example. An element of the government intentionally infected African Americans with syphillis, and the decline of their health coldly cataloged as though they were lab rats, scores of people were involved yet it remained secret for nearly 40 years. To us this proves(or should prove) that there are government conspiracies, nothing more, but to many New World Order conspiracy theory adherents this is background information (Most probably along the eugenics and depopulation lines.) In closing, I don't consider skepticism already having my mind made up on every point, rather more a mix of objectivity and devil's advocate, questioning everything until empirical evidence surfaces - this is the way it plays out in the physical sciences at least.

SkepticWon (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If you have problems understanding the difference between population control and depopulation, well, that's your problem. Wikipedia must and will portray the matter differently. Also, Bilderberg, etc...are you sure your brother exists? 78.48.146.145 (talk) 11:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Once again, my standard chime-in to say that these discussions would be much easier if parties stopped talking about their personal positions. Stick to discussing how you want the article to change using sourced information, and discussing the quality of sources in use (or lack thereof). Then there is no need to write to the Nth detail of what your position may be, or what you think someone else's position may be.

Regarding weasel words. Yes, this article contains some. Every instance I've found, I'm alright with. Weasel words, particularly when evidenced by sourced material (and all of the ones I've found in this article are so evidenced), are sometimes acceptable, if not necessary, to improve the readability of the article. While I'm not fond of the title, this concept is explored in the essay, Wikipedia:Embrace weasel words. -Verdatum (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Verdatum, I wholeheartedly agree. Discussions might be deescalated by sticking to discussions of improvements and reminding users who feel they need to discuss other topics here early. Loremaster may or may not be right in his assessment of some users, but rubbing it in their faces does neither help his position, not the article. A calmer tone would be greatly appreciated. On topic: please give more concrete examples and, if possible, projected improvements. And please look at both "new world order" articles and try to understand the reasoning behind it, which is not obstruction, but clarity. 87.166.90.13 (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how many times I'm going to have to say this but I couldn't care less about people chiming in to tell me what I should and shouldn't talk about. I'm going to express my accessment of users when and how I want if I deem it necessary. If anyone doesn't like it, please report me or keep quiet. Putting aside the fact that I was perfecly calm when I wrote my replies to SkepticWon, I hope no one thinks that I am anonymous User:78.48.146.145. --Loremaster (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, my above comment was directed to all participants. I know you couldn't care less. Regardless, I'm going to express my assessment of adherence to policy and guidelines when and how I want if I deem it necessary; particularly in discussions involving new editors such as SkepticWon. If anyone doesn't like it, they can fork Wikipedia and host it on their own server in any way they see fit. I hope it is understood I'm trying to promote constructive dialog in an effort to improve this encyclopedia, and that I'm not trying to game the system by pointing out obscure rules or other such wikilawyery. All reporting does is gets an administrator to tell you the same things I'm saying; I don't see much point in it. -Verdatum (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Loremaster (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

SkepticWon,

1. Regardless of what you think you are, someone who is on objective search of the truth must be willing to let it take them to conclusions that may refute their most deeply-held convinctions. Can you honestly say that you are?
2. I'm sure you can find articles where Rockefeller promotes some form of Chinese-style mandated population control in countries of the global south but there is a difference between population control and depopulation since the former involves stopping the growth of human societies while the latter involves reducing the bulk of the world population. In other words, the former involves maintaining the total number of living humans on Earth at, as an example, 6 billion while the latter involves reducing that that number to, as an example, 500 million.
3. No one here cares about your brother so you should stop talking about him.
4. No one is denying how the term "New World Order" is used by conspiracy theorists is a reflection of how they intepret the use of the term "new world order" by politicians and pundits when discussing international relations. The History of the term section of the article already explains this quite well. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that verifiable data is being excluded from one or both of these articles. Give me an example and then we'll talk about it. That being said, I have a feeling that whatever information you think is being excluded is simply being misinterpreted by you as evidence of a conspiracy that doesn't in fact exist.
5. I suggest you read or re-read the Alleged conspirators section of the article for starters in order for you to understand why your research has led you astray... As for the aliens conspiracy theory, let me remind you that what you have seen or take exception to doesn't matter here! The only thing that matters for Wikipedia is that reliable sources tell us that the aliens-behind-the New-World-Order theory is quite popular among conspiracists. Do you understand?
6. Do you have any comments about the minor improvements I've made to the article because of your input?
7. The notion that the New world order (politics) article should mention the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009, and so-called secret societies doesn't make any sense for countless reasons but specifically because you would need a reliable source which documents that some politicians and pundits have use the term "new world order" in the context of advocating for a climate change treaty AND how "Climategate" threatens their push for a new world order. That being said, if you really think that emissions trading echo elements of the New World Order conspiracy theory, I can't take anything you say seriously from now on.
8. Like many people who have read and misinterpreted G. William Domhoff's essay There Are No Conspiracies, you are obviously confusing conspiracy theories with actual civil conspiracies, criminal conspiracies and political conspiracies, such the ones you mentioned. Domhoff isn't arguing that the latter don't exist (since that would be absurd), he is arguing that "conspiracy theory" has come to be defined as a fringe theory which contradicts institutional analysis because it explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning. That being said, have you even taken the time to read the essay for dismissing it?

--Loremaster (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Updates

I'm surprised I didn't think of creating an "In popular culture" section for the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article before now! I will work on it later this week but anyone should feel free to start one before that as long as they respect Wikipedia's guidelines for "In popular culture" sections. --Loremaster (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I created a stub. --Loremaster (talk) 08:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I expanded it. --Loremaster (talk) 09:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Due to problems with my home computer, I may often edit the article anonymously from IP User:216.99.45.48 so please do not automatically assume these anyonymous edits are not constructive and revert them. Thank you for your understanding. --Loremaster (talk) 23:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Collectivist?

The NWO has been said to be many things but collectivist? Seriously? Is that not pandering to the right wing fear of "Obama's socialism" just a bit much? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.82.117 (talk) 18:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

As Chip Berlet, an American investigative reporter specializing in the study of right-wing movements in the U.S., wrote in his 1999 essay Dances with Devils: How Apocalyptic and Millennialist Themes Influence Right Wing Scapegoating and Conspiracism:

“ When President Bush announced his new foreign policy would help build a New World Order, his phrasing surged through the Christian and secular hard right like an electric shock, since the phrase had been used to represent the dreaded collectivist One World Government for decades. Some Christians saw Bush as signaling the End Times betrayal by a world leader. Secular anticommunists saw a bold attempt to smash US sovereignty and impose a tyrannical collectivist system run by the United Nations. ”

Therefore, the notion that we are pandering to right-wing fears is absurd since the point of this article is to describe exactly what the right-wing fears are. Futhermore, if you carefully read the History of the term section of the article, you will see that we take pains to explain that Obama's use of the term "world order" is in no way a call for a socialist one-world government. That being said, perhaps you fail to understand that the term "new world order" has one meaning in international politics and another meaning in conspiracy theory. The new world order (politics) article is about the former while the New World Order (conspiracy theory) is obviously about the latter. --Loremaster (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

For the record there is no mention whatsoever in the Book of Revelations of the Antichrist. This is by far the most off topic comment I have seen.Smallman12q (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 00:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 21:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)