Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory)/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Freemasonry

P2

Franco Ferraresi seems to believe that P2 was political in nature in his book Threats to democracy: the radical right in Italy after the war, which was why it was disbanded by the government. Lung salad (talk) 09:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/P2 Lung salad (talk) 09:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

uh, who argued that P2 wasn't political? The Masonic researcher we are using as a source hasn't. I haven't. So what's your point? --Loremaster (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

A more important question... Does Ferraresi discuss P2's politics in connection with the NWO? If not, then his belief is irrelevant in the context of this article. Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Who does mention P2's politics in relation to NWO? If anyone does, Ferrasesi can be used as a reliable source about the reality of P2. Lung salad (talk) 07:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Ferrasesi's position is based on primary source materials - not on paragraphs and paragraphs devoid of any footnotes. Lung salad (talk) 07:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but does Ferraresi discuss P2's politics in connection with the NWO? Can you provide a quote showing that he does? If he doesn't, he's not an appropriate source here, as making the link between what he says and what others say would violate WP:SYNTH --Nuujinn (talk) 11:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

For those who are confused by this non-sensical dispute, you need to know that the Freemasonry section of the article originally ended with the following sentence:

Ultimately, Freemasons argue that even if it were proven that influential individuals have used and are using Masonic Lodges to engage in crypto-politics, such as was the case with the illegal Italian Lodge Propaganda Due, this would represent a cooptation of Freemasonry rather than evidence of its hidden agenda.

Lung salad objected to the mention of P2 because he thinks that there should be no mention of Italian Freemasonry if the section focuses on Anglo-American Freemasonry. It's utterly ridiculous. Can we please get back to discussing the compromise I suggested? --Loremaster (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The above quotation should contain citations. Lung salad (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Um... It did contain a citation ... to: Keown, Trevor W. (5 May 2004). "What was the P2 Lodge?". Anti-masonry Frequently Asked Questions. Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon A.F. & A. M. ... GLBC&Y is certainly in the Anglo tradition, so I don't see what the problem is. Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Since I'm not even arguing to restore the mention of P2 in the article that was deleted by Lung salad, I don't even understand why we are having this debate. --Loremaster (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be no published debunkings in existence of P2 as a NWO "threat", so I guess that means David Icke must be "right" about that. Lung salad (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? --Loremaster (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please explain? Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Can only include citations relevant to the subject matter, right? If there are no debunkings of P2 in context of NWO, there is nothing to cite. Lung salad (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Some anti-Masonic New World Order conspiracy theorists use P2 as proof that Freemasonry has a hidden political agenda (in constrast to an open politial agenda such as the Grand Orient of France lobbying for maintaining the seperation of church and state). The Masonic researcher we cited explained why P2 doesn't prove that at all. This is relevent information in this article even if he doesn't specifically mention the New World Order conspiracy theory itself in his debunking of P2. That being said, I'm not interested in restoring the mention of P2 since it was superfluous so this debate is pointless. --Loremaster (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I would agree. WP:Due weight plays a role here... even within the spectrum of NWO theorists there are some claims that are widely made, and some that are made by only one or two theorists. We should focus on the widely made ones and not really bother to mention the ones that are generally ignored by the bulk of theorists. A P2 connection to the NWO falls into the latter category. Compare this to the belief that the street plan of Washington DC contains hidden Masonic emblems ... that is something which most NWO theorists include. Blueboar (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. However, the original mention of P2 in the article was very trivial. It was almost put between parantheses next to a “i.e.”. It's not like an entire paragraph was about claims surrounding P2. This is why I keep repeating that this huge debate about this is silly. --Loremaster (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Yup. Blueboar (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Margaret C. Jacob

The personal views of Margaret C. Jacob (who is a copycat author adding no original research to her books) should not dominate this article to the exclusion of material by Judith F. Stone, the Revue Maçonnique, M. L. McIsaac, or A. Hamon, H. Hamon Lung salad (talk) 07:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Although Margaret C. Jacob is a reliable source according to Wikipedia guidelines and therefore can be used regardless of your criticisms, the content based her a summary of her book that I added to the article was deleted in June so this rant of yours is pointless. Can we please get back to discussing the compromise I suggested? --Loremaster (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The sources that I use are considered reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. The summary of Margaret C Jacob's book can be used but the article will not be confined to her opinions. There are other scholars in the world. Lung salad (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No one has ever proposed confining the article to her opinions and no one is disputing the reliability of some of your sources! The problem is the revelance of the some of the content you want to add and the way in which you try to integrate this content into the article. Can we please get back to discussing the compromise I suggested? --Loremaster (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

We should not use Margaret Jacob, because she does not discuss Freemasonry in connection to the NWO conspiracy theory (either to make a conspiracy claim or to rebut one). Same with other historians that don't discuss Freemasonry in connection to the NWO conspiracy theory.

Please remember the purpose and focus of this article is... its purpose and focus is to explain to our readers a) what the NWO conspiracy theory is and how it developed, 2) what its proponents claim, and 3) what others say in reply to those claims. The focus must remain firmly within those three goals. A lot of the argument that seems to be going on about the various forms of Freemasonry seems extraneous to those three goals. Focus people... it's important. This is an article about the NWO theory... not an article about Freemasonry. So, this article is about a distinct set of claims and rebuttals to those claims. Blueboar (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. --Loremaster (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Except that the Judeo-Masonic plot existed out of the reality of organisations like Grand Orient de France where Freemasonry was involved with politics, and was the reason for the creation of this conspiracy theory. Lung salad (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That may well be true... but our verifiability policy tells us that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is Verifiability, not truth". We can't mention it in an article unless we have a source that mentions it (even if it is true). And the WP:No original research policy expands on that idea... saying we should not mention things in a specific article unless we have a source that directly connects it to the topic of the specific article... in this case, the NWO theory.

In other words, if we are going to say that organisations like Grand Orient de France were involved with politics, and this was the reason for the creation of this Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory which is talked about by NWO theorist, what we need is a single source that makes all the connections you are making... one source that explicitly says that a) Masonic organizations like Grand Orient de France were involved with politics, and that b) this caused the creation of the theory that there exists a Judeo-Masonic plot and c) this became a sub-theory of the NWO theorists.

If even one link in this chain of logic is from your own thinking and understanding of the topic ... then its what WP:NOR calls a synthetic statement... we can't say it, even if the logic chain is accurate. Blueboar (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, and well said. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't have said it better myself. --Loremaster (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Well written articles

Well written articles stand for nothing if what they contain is useless. Visitors to Wikipedia articles are not silly Lung salad (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Creating a new discussion thread simply to rant against the article is not productive. Please make specific proposals to improve the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article or keep your opinions to yourself. --Loremaster (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That was my point about you. Lung salad (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I have made a specific proposal but you refuse to discuss it. So let me repeat: The entire subsection should be deleted since it doesn't respect the logic of the Conspiracy theories section of the article, which consists of reporting New World Order conspiracy theories involving a particular group followed by criticisms by skeptics which debunks these conspiracy theories. However, some of it's content can and should be integrated in the original Freemasonry section of the article, while the paragraphs dealing with Masonic apologetics should be edited to remove statements that only apply to Anglo-American Freemasonry and replace them with statements that apply to both Anglo-American and Continental Freemasonry. Could this proposed compromise work for you? --Loremaster (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

And there were considerable faults in the original Freemasonry subsection that had no bearing at all to NWO. Lung salad (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Which parts? Blueboar (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Lung salad, I'm not sure what you are referring to exactly but I will say this: Even if you don't believe that, for example, the reverse side of the Great Seal of the United States has any bearing to a New World Order conspiracy, you need to know, understand, and accept that it has been documented that many many conspiracy theorists do. This is the reason why, for example, political scientist Michael Barkun put part of the Great Seal on the cover of his book A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America. --Loremaster (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Draft for a new Freemasonry section

In order to resolve this dispute, here is my first draft for a new Freemasonry section. I've put in bold the content that is new:

Freemasonry is one of the world's oldest secular fraternal organizations, which arose in late 16th- to early 17th-century Britain. Over the years a number of allegations and conspiracy theories have been directed towards Freemasonry, including the allegation that Freemasons are conspiring to bring about a New World Order, a world government organized according to Masonic principles and/or governed only by Freemasons.

The esoteric nature of Masonic symbolism and rites led to Freemasons being first accused of secretly practicing Satanism in the late 1700s. The original allegation of a conspiracy within Freemasonry to subvert religions and governments in order to take over the world traces back to Scottish author John Robison, whose reactionary conspiracy theories crossed the Atlantic, and during the 1800s influenced outbreaks of Protestant anti-Masonry in the United States. In the 1890s, French writer Léo Taxil wrote a series of pamphlets and books, denouncing Freemasonry, charging their lodges with worshiping Lucifer. Despite the fact that Taxil admitted that his claims were all a hoax, they were and are believed and repeated by numerous conspiracy theorists, and had a huge influence on subsequent anti-Masonic claims about Freemasonry.

While the Anglo-American Freemasons rigidly adhered to their rule that Freemasonry must not become involved in politics, Freemasons in the Grand Orient of France not only took part in political activity but went so far as to become closely involved with the Radical Party, a moderate political party of the center-left which became the most important party of the Third Republic of France at the end of the 19th century. French far-right agitators, such as Edouard Drumont and Henry Coston, accused the Grand Orient of France of being under the control of Jewish conspirators bent on world domination.

Some conspiracy theorists would eventually accuse some of the Founding Fathers of the United States, such as George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, of having Masonic designs interwoven into American society, particularly in the Great Seal of the United States, the United States one-dollar bill, the architecture of National Mall landmarks, and the streets and highways of Washington, D.C., as part of a grand conspiracy. Accordingly, colonial American Freemasons are portrayed as having embraced Bavarian Illuminism and used the power of the occult to bind their planning of a government in conformity with the plan of the "Masonic God" — Lucifer worshipped as the Supreme Being — because of their belief that the "Great Architect of the Universe" has tasked the United States with the eventual establishment of the "Kingdom of God on Earth" — a Masonic world theodemocracy with New Jerusalem as its capital city and the Third Temple as its holiest site — the initially utopian New World Order presided over by the Antichrist.

Freemasons rebut these claims of Masonic conspiracy. Freemasonry, which promotes rationalism, places no power in occult symbols themselves, and it is not a part of its principles to view the drawing of symbols, no matter how large, as an act of consolidating or controlling power. Furthermore, there is no published information establishing the Masonic membership of the men responsible for the design of the Great Seal. The Latin phrase "novus ordo seclorum", appearing on the reverse side of the Great Seal since 1782 and on the back of the one-dollar bill since 1935, means "New Order of the Ages" and only alludes to the beginning of an era where the United States is an independent nation-state, but is often mistranslated by conspiracy theorists as "New Secular Order" or "New World Order". Lastly, Freemasons argue that, despite the symbolic importance of the Temple of Solomon in their mythology, they have no interest in rebuilding it, especially since "it is obvious that any attempt to interfere with the present condition of things [on the Temple Mount] would in all probability bring about the greatest religious war the world has ever known".

More broadly, Freemasons argue that the accusation that Freemasonry has a hidden agenda to establish a Masonic government ignores several facts. While agreeing on certain Masonic Landmarks, the many independent and sovereign Grand Lodges act as such, and do not agree on many other points of belief and practice. Also, as can be seen from a survey of famous Freemasons, individual Freemasons hold beliefs that span the spectrum of politics. The term "Masonic government" has no meaning since individual Freemasons hold many different opinions on what constitutes a good government.

What do you all think? --Loremaster (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Can I assume that all this can be properly sourced, and that those sources discuss these points within the context of discussing something to do with the NWO directly? If not it's probably synthetic OR. Blueboar (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Lung salad claims he has such sources. So the ball is in his court... --Loremaster (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Compromise?

Compromise is a word some editors fail to understand Lung salad (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Instead of making snide remarks, can you PLEASE discuss my proposal above? If not, you are making it hard for us to assume your good faith... --Loremaster (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Loremaster, while I admire your desire to reach a compromise, I would say that until reliable secondary sources are presented which directly support the assertions Lung Salad wants to add, there's nothing really to discuss. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

OK. Well, if that is the case, the article should be unlocked immediately so that we can delete the content he added (which he is free to restore once he provided reliable sources to support some of his claims) and resume improving the article. --Loremaster (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to make the change, I believe the lock has expired. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see. Well, can someone intervene if Lung salad starts edit warring? --Loremaster (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I think there are enough eyes here that we can manage to discuss the issues if there are any objections. Sources should be presented to support assertions, and if we keep a level head, there's no need for edit warring (which takes more than one party). We can also ask for additional help at an appropriate notice board if need be. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Good. --Loremaster (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

USS Liberty

I suggest adding/amending the "USS Liberty incident" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident to this article if/where appropriate. Of course a consensus will probably need to be met to determine if such fits in as evidence/information of the NWO conspiracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.106.13 (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The issue isn't even one of consensus but of reliable sources. You need to find a notable mainstream journalist or scholar who explicitly states that some conspiracy theorists link the USS Liberty incident to the alleged New World Order conspiracy. --Loremaster (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales

a page without a lie is a nonexist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.111.104.63 (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Please note that this talk page is intended for discussions about how to improve the article. Edits attempting to call out Jimmy Wales or allege that the article contains lies are not particularly constructive. Perhaps you should point out to us which excerpts of the article you feel are poorly sourced or inaccurate? Then we can address your specific concerns with the article. John Shandy` • talk 18:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, we could have just removed this under WP:DENY and issued a uw-socialnetwork warning. This fellow's post goes along with the sort of M.O. for unconstructive true believers or trolls imitating such individuals. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ian. --Loremaster (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

That's fine by me. I typically forget or refrain from doing so because of the typical "omg you're trying to censor me, you must be on the Illuminati payroll!" type of response, which we never seem to be able to live down. On some level I do think some editors underestimate the degree of nonsense we endure on controversial articles such as this, so part of me sees value in leaving a few examples in plain sight now and then. As for user welcome (or user warning) templates, I'm not familiar with the names of most of them and I haven't had much luck in locating all of them through searches since they have inconsistent naming conventions - if you could point me in the right direction for them Ian, I'd much appreciate it. Feel free to remove this thread. John Shandy` • talk 02:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Notable 'futurists" claim that a global socialist police state is inevitable

Should this be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.241.128 (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

1. If you want to suggest additions to the article, please always provide a reliable source and a citation of the content in this source to support such suggestions.
2. Claims from notable futurists claiming that a global socialist police state is inevitable may be relevant BUT please remember that this article is about New World Order conspiracy theory therefore we ideally need to find a notable futurist who claims that the global socialist police state imagined by conspiracy theorists is inevitable.

--Loremaster (talk) 02:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Lung salad's criticisms

Direct quotes from online sources

When copying and pasting texts from online sources, these should contain quotation marks for purposes of accuracy and integrity. Lung salad (talk) 23:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I've edited the last paragraph of the Freemasonry section of the article to resolve all the issues that Lung salad has raised once and for all. --Loremaster (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Freemasonry and Politics - Again

A biased online source was used to promote the claim that there was no connection between Freemasonry and Politics. Whilst retaining this citation as an example of that particular point of view, I have included the information that Freemasonry in some countries has been involved in conventional politics - using France as an example (others include Italy, Portugal and Spain). I have provided citations from scholarly sources to substantiate the statements. Wikipedia has articles on Grand Orient de France where this information is already given, and it can also be included here. Editors should strive to maintain Neutral Point of View in Wikipedia articles and avoid any particular bias. Lung salad (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

While well-sourced additions for interesting exceptions are welcome, we should be careful about WP:GEVAL. If Freemasonry as a whole avoids politics, and there are libertarians, fascists, socialists, capitalists, (theistic) secularists, and fundamentalists in the lodges, it's pretty clear that what happened in France was the exception, not the rule. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It's still happening today in France and in Italy. Spain and Portugal are similar. It would be misleading to give a blank statement claim that "there is no politics in Freemasonry". Lung salad (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It would also be misleading to make a blanket statement that Masonry is political just because some irregular masons are, just as it would be to say that soccer is a destructive sport just because of some out of control fans causing problems outside of the game. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The political Grand Orient de France exists on a national level. French Freemasonry introduced secular philosophy within its lodges following the Revolution and in doing so ejected Catholic esotericism. This was the beginning of its involvement in politics through the elimination of the French Monarchy. It was inevitable that the belief in a Supreme Being became terminated, hence its becoming 'irregular' Freemasonry in some other Grand Lodges outside France. There is no uniformity within Freemasonry. Lung salad (talk) 00:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

"There is no uniformity within Freemasonry" is exactly why Freemasons getting involved in politics is the exception, not the rule. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

"Broadly speaking" about Freemasonry is therefore misleading since the Freemasonry in each country is a reflection of that particular country's cultural history, and because no two countries are the same, Freemasonry cannot the same everywhere. Freemasonry is a mixed-bag. Lung salad (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Which is why we must present the French example as an irregularity overall, it is only an issue with that Grand Orient, not a universal characteristic of Freemasonry. A few green M&M in a large bowl of red M&M's doesn't make the bowl a bowl of green M&Ms. Freemasonry is present in most countries, but it's only in a few European countries that Freemasons have interfered in politics. They are exceptions, not the rule. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, let's present it that way. But let's not omit this fact completely as if placing it in some hermetically-sealed capsule. BTW, Grand Lodge of England and Wales is not regarded as being distinct from politics by the French who view it as being of Protestant origin linked with the succession of Protestant Monarchs. Lung salad (talk) 00:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that the current version of the last paragraph of the Freemasonry section of the article is a result of a comprise to find statements statements that apply to both Anglo-American and Continental Freemasonry. A majority of contributors to this talk page (User:Blueboar, User:Nuujinn, User:Loremaster) in the previous debates about Freemasonry (which can be found in many section above) are opposed to Lung salad's suggestions and I still maintain my opposition to them. I will therefore revert all his edits. --Loremaster (talk) 02:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

If the word "Broadly" is going to be used, it has to be stated that Freemasonry is a mixed-bag. And not choosing biased references that support a particular editor's opinion. Wikipedia should maintain Neutral Point of View.Lung salad (talk) 06:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I've already explained in great detail in debates in section above why you are completely wrong. --Loremaster (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You have done no such thing. You want to censor the connection between Freemasonry and politics because you wrongly believe there is some connection between that and "New World Order" - for your information Grand Orient de France is only concerned with conventional politics and holds no interest in things like UFOs and 9/11 conspiracy theories. You have gone to the trouble of vandalising scholarly historical sources over this mistaken idea.Lung salad (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Blueboar has contributed to Grand Orient de France and acknowledged on this Talk Page that politics existed within Freemasonry. Lung salad (talk) 07:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Nothing in the compromise paragraph I wrote contradicts this point. --Loremaster (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no "compromise" paragraph. You have picked a biased online quotation that was ignorant of the connection between politics and Freemasonry in France. Lung salad (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the text is clearly about English-speaking Freemasonry therefore it acknowledges the connection between politics and Continental Freemasonry. However, the second paragraph of the text is about Freemasonry as a whole. This is why your edit is flawed. --Loremaster (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I've edited the last paragraph of the Freemasonry section of the article to resolve all the issues that Lung salad has raised once and for all. --Loremaster (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Using biased references for articles

The online reference used to promote the "no politics within Freemasonry" argument in this article [1] was not well written - it used Saint-Yves d'Alveydre's theory of synarchism that was representative of what can only be "pie-in-in-the-sky" idealistic form of Freemasonry embraced by Romantics and Dreamers. Yet that particular online article seemed to be completely ignorant of the Grand Orient de France and its collusion and participation within the active framework of the French Third Republic - which is a historical fact found in historical books and taught in colleges and universities. There are Wikipedia articles considered notable enough to be devoted to both Grand Orient de France and to its supplemental subject matter the Affaire Des Fiches. The proof that politics was active within Freemasonry can be found within Wikipedia itself since it has articles devoted to it. It would therefore be highly misleading to make the statement that Freemasonry has never been involved in politics in this particular article and yet have other Wikipedia articles that state the exact opposite. Lung salad (talk) 07:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is a list of areas where just regular Masonic Grand Lodges are located. There's hundreds of Grand Lodges. The Grant Orient you mention is just one of a dozen grand lodges in France. The situation you present is, at most, a twelfth of a percent, and that's extremely forgiving. It's probably more like a percent of a percent. It violates WP:GEVAL and WP:NOR to say that "Freemasonry is involved in politics" based off of the Grand Orient de France. It would be more representative to say that Americans are multibillionaires just because %1 happens to be. While it would be fine to point out exceptions, they must be pointed out as exceptions.

When one source is problematic, there are always more sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your interesting comments. Two important issues here that need to be adressed: 1) Loremaster's online quotation is off-topic because Saint-Yves d'Alveydre did not represent Mainstream French Freemasonry, he was considered - and is considered - Fringe occult material. He cannot be used within the context of "broad" statements about French Freemasonry, never mind Freemasonry in general. 2) The Grand Orient de France is one of three major French Lodges - Grand Orient de France [2], Grande Loge de France [3], Grande Loge Nationale Française [4]- and Grand Orient de France happens to be the biggest of the three. Lung salad (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

There's also Italian, Spanish and Portuguese Freemasonry - and by extension South American Freemasonry, that's all political. Lung salad (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The current version of the last paragraph doesn't argue that that there "no politics within Freemasonry" so this entire conversation is based on a straw man. --Loremaster (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Correction: The "More Broadly" paragraph quotes from an online text referring to Saint-Yves d'Alveydre - a Fringe Occultist - and not to French Freemasonry.Lung salad (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the text is clearly about English-speaking Freemasonry. However, the second paragraph of the text is about Freemasonry as a whole. This is why your correction is flawed. The issue of synarchy and Saint-Yves d'Alveydre is a sub-topic of the general topic of whether or not Freemasonry has a secret political agenda. --Loremaster (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Then it is a flawed article, if the second paragraph "is about Freemasonry as a whole", since the author could not have heard of Grand Orient de France, and this is suggested by his only mentioning synarchy and d'Alveydere and nothing else. Lung salad (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The author is Trevor W. McKeown, a researcher who works for the Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukonm, who is quite familiar with Grand Orient of France since he mentions them in several of his texts on their website. That being said, you seem unable to grasp that there is a difference between being political (such as French Freemasons were and still are to this day) and having a secret political agenda. The Grand Orient of France is involved in politics but it doesn't have a secret political agenda. Furthermore, there is a difference between being political (such as advocating for the seperation of church and state) and promoting the concept of a “Masonic government”. Lastly, Saint-Yves d'Alveydre and his concept of synarchy is being used by some anti-Masons to argue that Freemasonry has a secret political agenda, which is not same as simply being openly involved in politics like French Freemasons. --Loremaster (talk) 02:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I've edited the last paragraph of the Freemasonry section of the article to resolve all the issues that Lung salad has raised once and for all. --Loremaster (talk) 03:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Those Masonic bodies that involve themselves with political matters like Grand Orient de France have no interest in New World Order, the subject of this article, they hold no interest in UFOs and 9/11 conspiracy theories. Masonic bodies in Portugal and Spain are political in that they are sympathetic to Monarchist issues. Lung salad (talk) 10:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I've made the clarifications you have suggested --Loremaster (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Compromise paragraph

The compromise paragraph consists of a copy-and-paste quotation without quotation marks. The complete version of the article refers to the context of regular English-speaking Freemasonry in relation to the prohibition of politics. This was omitted and I have included it. Within the context of French Freemasonry and politics it only referred to synarchy and Saint-Yves d'Alveydre, who was a Fringe occultist - without referencing Grand Orient de France, that the writer of that article seems to be unaware of - but I have noticed that other articles on that American website have fired blanks before, in relation to other matters. Read for yourself. http://www.freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-masonry/anti-masonry04.html#politics Lung salad (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the text is clearly about English-speaking Freemasonry. However, the second paragraph of the text is about Freemasonry as a whole. This is why your correction is flawed. The issue of synarchy and Saint-Yves d'Alveydre is a sub-topic of the general topic of whether or not Freemasonry has a secret agenda. That being said, regardin the issue of “firing blanks”, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.--Loremaster (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Copying-and-pasting copyrighted material from online sources without acknowledgement or producing quotation marks, flawed interpretation of what is written, Saint-Yves d'Alveydre was a Fringe occultist who never belonged to any of the major French Masonic bodies, this is not good Wikipedia editing. I can and have provided verifiable sources to consolitate reliable scholarly sources that uphold the integrity of my edits. What editors think is true does not matter. Lung salad (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Although you are correct that quotation marks should have been used, the material was always referenced and sourced. That being said, Saint-Yves d'Alveydre and his concept of synarchy is being used by some anti-Masons to argue that Freemasonry has a secret political agenda, which is not same as simply being openly involved in politics like French Freemasons. --Loremaster (talk) 02:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I've edited the last paragraph of the Freemasonry section of the article to resolve all the issues that Lung salad has raised once and for all. --Loremaster (talk) 03:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Those Masonic bodies that involve themselves with political matters like Grand Orient de France have no interest in New World Order, the subject of this article, they hold no interest in UFOs and 9/11 conspiracy theories. Masonic bodies in Portugal and Spain are political in that they are sympathetic to Monarchist issues.Lung salad (talk) 11:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I've made the clarifications you have suggested. --Loremaster (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Backing up...

Seeing the above, there is some serious conflation. France , Spain, Portugal, etc., all have multiple "branches" of Freemasonry (UGLE and "liberal", "irregular", whatever). They are all separate entities from one another. The political stance or activities of one cannot be extended to any other, because they do not act in concert, and many of these bodies are so small as to be unable to affect anything. To conflate these groups together as some sort of unified front is to create the conspiracy rather than evaluate its veracity from sources (the latter of which is the encyclopedic point). Belief in something is not necessarily going to make truth out of it, and what seems to be happening is that Lung salad is taking the position that the conspiracy definitely exists and that any political stance by a Grand body is automatically part of that conspiracy whether it makes sense or not to say so. Freemasonry exists in countries that have monarchy, democracy, and semi-presidential systems - so their political stance isn't even the same.

There's a lot of semantics, too. We really can't "broadly" speak about Freemasonry in this context; it is simply not possible. Any source that claims to do so is incorrect, or is in fact limiting itself to one branch of Freemasonry. MSJapan (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Nobody's "conflating" anything. There are Freemasonic bodies that are political and these exist in France, Italy, Spain and Portugal. Lung salad (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you miss the point... What MSJ (and, more importantly, Trevor McKeown) is trying to say is that there are multiple Freemasonic bodies in France, Italy, Spain and Portugal (and just about everywhere else). France for example, has over fifty Grand Lodges/Grand Orients... each of them claims to represent "Freemasonry" in France. The same is true in Italy, Spain and Portugal - there are multiple competing bodies in each country. Yes, some of these do take political stances, but others do not - and of the ones that do take political stances, some support liberal agendas, while others support conservative agendas.

Because Freemasonry is so splintered, and the various splinters are so diverse, it is inaccurate to talk about "Freemasonry" in broad terms. The best we can do is talk about it in specific terms (The Grand Orient de France says "X", while the Grand Lodge de France says "Y" and the Grand Lodge National de France says "Z", etc.).

That said... the conspiracy theorists who link Freemasonry to the NWO do talk about "Freemasonry" as if it were one unified group... one with a (hidden) political agenda. We do need to note this fact so that our readers understand the premise behind the theory. Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I fully understand your point about the diverse nature of Freemasonry. I think it's important to address the fact within this article that those Freemasonic bodies that hold interests in politics are banal and sober interests, and have nothing at all to do with New World Order Conspiracy, just to clarify this fact. For example, I have noticed on the conspiracy blogs how reference is still made to P2 etc Lung salad (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I think everyone is getting confused. Lung salad does not believe in Masonic conspiracy theories. He simply didn't understand that when Trevor McKeown defends Freemasonry against accusations that it has a secret political agenda he does so by arguing that not only does Freemasonry not have a secret political agenda but it doesn't have an open political agenda either because it is apolitical. Lung salad agrees with McKeown that Freemasonry doesn't have a secret political agenda but he counters that some organizations in the Continental Freemasonry do have an open political agenda. So Lung salad is right but he doesn't accept that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

Regarding Lung salad's suggestion that we clarify that Masonic bodies hold interests that are banal, I've now done it but I would be opposed to a lenghlty paragraph on the subject. --Loremaster (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Contemporary world order

Perhaps that the 1318 companies that have most power should be mentioned; see http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html Mention Capitalism: A Love Story; in the documentary, it was said that Goldman Sachs actually runs the US senate

Also add links to Occupy Wall Street and Indignados 91.182.109.200 (talk) 08:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you may confused about the topic of this article. Like its name suggests, this article isn't about “new world order” as a paradigm shift in international relations (if you are interested in that subject, I suggest you read and possibly edit the new world order (politics) article instead). It's about conspiracy theories about a “New World Order”. By “conspiracy theory”, we mean any “a belief which explains an event as the result of a secret plot by exceptionally powerful and cunning conspirators to achieve a malevolent end”. Conspiracy theories are viewed with skepticism because they contrast with institutional analysis of historical or current events, and are rarely supported by conclusive evidence. --Loremaster (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

interwiki

I don't have an account here. Please add Persian intewiki to the article. [[fa:نظم نوین جهانی (تئوری توطئه)]]. thanks 194.225.239.120 (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

King and Emperor

The New World Order conspiracy theory is definitely the King and Emperor of all conspiracy theories! Keraunos (talk) 11:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It has arguably become the ultimate superconspiracy theory... --Loremaster (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Then again, have you thought about who might be behind the NWO conspiracy theory? Do you really think it a coincidence that the NWO theory gained such popularity when and how it did? Just who really invented this so called "New World Order conspiracy theory", and why did they create it? Was it created to distract the gullible masses from what is really going on? Is the New World Order Conspiracy Theory itself a conspiracy? (We could call this the New World Order Conspiracy Theory (conspiracy theory)) Blueboar) (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

No I haven't thought of that because not only am I not paranoid but I don't have time to waste. Putting aside the fact that Michael Barkun explains in his book A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America why the NWO conspiracy theory gained such popularity, I share Chip Berlet's POV when he says: "Certainly there are conspiracies in history, but history is not controlled by conspiracy, it is shaped by complex forces involving economics, culture, natural events, and random action. Conspiracism blames individualized and subjective forces for economic and social problems rather than analyzing conflict in terms of systems and structures of power." --Loremaster (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Well where is the fun in that. The whole point in conspiracy theory is that there are conspiracies behind the conspiracy. Blueboar (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

So it is safe to assume that your first comment in this thread was sarcastic, right? ;) --Loremaster (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Mostly. Although there was a semi-serious point behind it. Keraunos called the NWO theory the "King and Emperor" of conspiracy theories, and you call it the "ultimate". My point was that, when it comes to conspiracy theory, it is always possible to postulate a theory that outdoes the theory you are reading about ... you can always postulate a deeper, more hidden conspiracy lying "hidden" under every conspiracy. For example: Some believe the Masons are conspiring to bring about the NWO... others go further, and believe that the Masons are simply being manipulated and controlled by the Illuminati ... but once you go down that road, you have to keep going... you have to ask: is there someone manipulating and controlling the Illuminati? (And if so, could there be someone manipulating and controlling them?) It goes on and on, conspiracy without end. There is no ultimate conspiracy theory, because someone can always postulate a theory that takes the "ultimate" a step further. Blueboar (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

See, I was thinking it was the ultimate CT because it's been around (in one form or another) for centuries. I can't think of any other CTs that have managed to persevere for such a long time. (Oh, and a quick note to the Jews/Aliens/Sea Monkeys/Whomever it is working to control the world -- you've been at it for centuries, and yet you still seem to have gotten no further than Pinkie and the Brain ever did. Seems to me that the conspirators are quite incompetent!)JoelWhy (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I see your point. It's kind of like the infinite regression problem of say, intelligent design or creationism, of "Who designed the designer? Who created the creator?" I still consider the NWO CT to be the "ultimate" superconspiracy theory in that, although it takes on many versions, each of which varies in depth, it is the most prominent theory that strings together just about every single event conspiracy theory that has ever been and will ever be postulated.

These days, it's quite difficult to be a 9/11 truther without also being a chemtrailer, fluorider, FEMA concentration camp'er, and ultimately a NWO conspiracy theorist (I'm not sure where, or whether, to place 2012'ers). The points of overlap where controversy arises among NWO conspiracy theorists are issues like, who the conspirators are (illuminati? shape-shifting reptilian humanoids? freemasons? Rockefeller family/House Rothschild? satan?), whether millennialist or not, etc. There are many atheist or otherwise secular conspiracists who don't accept any of the religious eschatologies that have been overlapped with a postulated NWO, but who replace them with the hollow-Earth-dwelling shape-shifting reptilian humanoids or at least alleged elite bloodlines.

This subject is so multifaceted, and I think that many of the conspiracists have no idea that so many iterations of the NWO conspiracy theory exist... I really think of it as a conspiracy theory set. It's difficult when say, an NWO conspiracism apologist arrives and suggests a number of edits to this article that would seek to water down the alien stuff (which they see as nonsensical), beef up the Christian millennialism (which they see as sensical), etc. (In other words, minimize one version and promote another version of the NWO conspiracy theory.) I'll never forget the plethora of anonymous editors Loremaster has had to explain to that this article, while it may not represent the theory as seen by any single conspiracist, has to do the job of explaining what conspiracists overall have claimed. It amazes me that one conspiracist will read the article, discount a chunk or two of it as "outlandish" but then go on not recognizing their own outlandish beliefs. Actually, I should say it amuses me. After having just finished Michael Shermer's latest book The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies—How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths, I don't find it all that surprising. I do sometimes wonder, although I don't believe in conspiracy theories, why I find them so fascinating. I guess it's because of how prominent they are in our political and socioeconomic discourse today. Quite frankly, the conspiracy theory article has been a bit neglected as of late - there's some yet-unresolved issues on the talk page I believe, and the article overall could use some work. I've just not had the mental resilience to tackle such a contentious article in while. John Shandy` • talk 18:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar, you since to not have noticed and understood that I called NWO the ultimate superconspiracy theory rather the ultimate conspiracy theory... --Loremaster (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

John Shandy, are you suggesting "911 truthers" are not conspiracy theorists? Aside from the non-vociferous faction which asserts that perhaps the government is holding back some information about what it knew beforehand, I don't think a more perfect example exists of conspiracy theory.

That was an interesting point about how many camps seem to adopt this issue and mold it to be their own. Some believe it's aliens, others the Jews, still others Freemasons. It's the one side fits all universal conspiracy theory. Pour a little on the ground, make water on it, add a few of your personal beliefs, and bam! Instant conspiracy to use to spread fear and loathing among your peers. It all revolves around someone wants to rule the whole world and while it almost seems absurd in terms of size and scope, historical precedent exists of figures trying to and in some cases essentially doing just that, so the fears are not so ridiculous in some peoples' minds.Batvette (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No, that isn't what I am suggesting. I see how my phrasing could've mistakenly given that impression. My point is that (in my experiences at least), it's difficult to come across a 9/11 truther who is only a 9/11 truther and not also an NWO conspiracy theorist (to some degree, and with varied views on who the alleged conspirators are, etc.). Almost every 9/11 truther I have encountered also holds fringe beliefs about a whole range of issues, including the aforementioned examples such as chemtrails and FEMA concentration camps. I think that the concern over global and far-reaching malfeasance is a genuine one; what's problematic is using such concerns to derive unfounded conclusions about the world which are either (a) not empirically supported with data or other hard evidence (with strong judicial or scientific standards for what constitutes evidence) or (b) unfalsifiable, which not only makes claims bizarre and unreasonable, but also useless because they cannot be tested and are asserted absent of scrutiny. There are legitimate and robust means of testing claims, sorting truths from falsehoods, overcoming political shortcomings, corruption, and oppression, overcoming economic challenges, and addressing real rather than imagined problems. John Shandy` • talk 06:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed that if a person believes in one conspiracy theory, they generally believe in many others. You aren't likely to find a person who believes the moon landing was a hoax, who doesn't also believe in various other well-known CTs. There are some exceptions; for example, I think a lot of people who believe JFK was assassinated as part of a conspiracy aren't necessarily believers in many other CTs. My hunch is that they simply haven't looked into the history of the event and since belief in this CT is so widespread (not to mention, maybe they saw the Oliver Stone movie) they just assume there was a conspiracy to assassinate the president. JoelWhy (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you all (re-)read this article: [Michael Barkun on] Old Conspiracies, New Beliefs. --Loremaster (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

John Shandy- okay indeed, I think that is what motivates their belief in 911 conspiracies anyway, they have preexisting beliefs and 911 nestles nicely with them. Some experts claim 911 CT's are actually strong anti war advocates who believe if they convince people 911 was not done by Islamic militants they can discredit all justifications for the wars of that decade that followed. There may be some truth to that but I think it's a lot more sordid than simply being against wars. I respect those who simply state the whole truth is not being told, there's secrets the government is keeping, because that is certainly true but it's more to keep scrutiny away from simple incompetence or negligence. The more hardcore, particularly controlled demolition CT's, I hold in utter contempt as they are usually as dishonest, either intellectually or willfully, about obfuscating facts as the villains in their head they believe are behind this. The phrase "ask questions... recognize answers" is so fitting. Engaging them in meaningful discussion is impossible, you show them evidence a talking point is fallacious, they don't even acknowledge it. Though there's that "conspiracy within a conspiracy" thing blueboar spoke of, since their beliefs are just so crazy you can't believe they have endured. Is it possible those who may have some criminal liability from just negligence- for instance the fireproofing on the towers was both badly applied initially and allowed to deteriorate- would they surround the whole thing with so much stupidity that any serious demands by the public for inquiry would completely turn off objective and intelligent people when they saw the company they'd be keeping? Or do enough CT's exist they wouldn't need to actively foment their silliness? Batvette (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The sanest thing Batvette has ever said on this talk page. I'm actually impressed. :o --Loremaster (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion forum but a place to discuss how to improve the article. None of the above has any place on this page. Please do not add any more comments like the above in this section. There are plenty of forums where this topic can be freely discussed. Thank you. 82.43.199.163 (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Not a forum. WP:NOTAFORUM--Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Remove "unfounded" from the following sentence as POV

During the Red Scare of 1947–1957, agitators of the American secular and Christian right, influenced by the work of Canadian conspiracy theorist William Guy Carr, increasingly embraced and spread unfounded fears of Freemasons, Illuminati, and Jews being the driving force behind an "international communist conspiracy".

The above should be rewritten without the word "unfounded". I am not arguing that the fears are founded or unfounded, but that Wikipedia is not a place to declare it. Doing so contravenes Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view and Wikipedia:No_original_research. Try to be objective about this rather than what you strongly believe to be true. 82.43.199.163 (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

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. If reliable sources on a topic are critically positive or negative, then Wikipedia should accurately reflect this viewpoint. --Loremaster (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If someone feared that the Boy scouts are really working to create an army of Satanist lesbians, those fears, having no basis in reality, are unfounded. As Loremaster explained, if reliable sources report that such fears are unfounded and have no basis in reality, then Wikipedia is free to call those fears unfounded, and actually should. "Neutral" does not mean "equal treatment for all views." Ian.thomson (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Assertions or theories can be unfounded. Fears and other emotions really cannot be. I support removal of that word -- and honestly, would any sane reader interpret a generic fear of Freemasons, Jews, and Illuminati (which don't exist) as rational, especially given the facts as presented in the article? SamuelRiv (talk) 08:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "unfounded fears" seems to be a pretty common one in reliable sources. Fears can be unfounded in the sense that they have no basis in reality. I don't see a problem with the word, and the IP's objection isn't that they can't be unfounded but that he doesn't think we should use it. Dougweller (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Book of Revelation

Just wanted to point out the reference to the "Book of Revelations" (plural) noted in the second paragraph under "End Time," which should be correctly called "Revelation" (singular). It is correct in the previous paragraph. Eric Kjaemperud (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it's now corrected. JoelWhy?(talk) 21:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Peace sign

I added a section on New World order conspiracy theories about the peace sign, with references to mentions of it by the John Birch Society and two websites devoted to supposed New World Order conspiracies: Teach Peace and Illuminati News. The theory is widespread among patriot groups, Christian fundamentalists and occultists, but it was removed as "not relevant". Why is it not relevant? Pelarmian (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The Conspiracy theories section of the New World Order conspiracy theory article is a list of major systemic conspiracy theories through which the concept of a New World Order is viewed. A systemic conspiracy theory deals with a conspiracy believed to have broad goals, usually conceived as securing control of a country, a region, or even the entire world. While the goals are sweeping, the conspiratorial machinery is generally simple: a single, evil organization implements a plan to infiltrate and subvert existing institutions. This is a common scenario in conspiracy theories that focus on the alleged machinations of Jews, Freemasons, or the Catholic Church, as well as theories centered on Communism or international capitalists.

That bein said, although it may be slightly note-worthy (in the Occultism sub-section of the New World Order conpiracy theory article) that many conspiracy theorists believe there is an occult and/or conspiratorial significance to the peace sign, it isn't a systemic conspiracy theory. Even it was, we would need several independent reliable sources (the work of journalists and scholars) to indicate that is in fact a popular systemic conspiracy theory among conspiracy theorists. The websites of conspiracy theorists are not reliable sources. They can and should only be used to support the claims made by journalists and scholars who study conspiracy theories from a critical point of view. --Loremaster (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I would say "trivial" would a better term than "not relevant". The article should keep its focus on the broad topic, and not get bogged down repeating every claim that is made by the various groups of theorists. Blueboar (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Nelson Rockefeller created the John Birch Society when he liquidated Jack Welch's family business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.31.29.247 (talk) 12:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Um... no... the John Birch Society was created by Robert W. Welch, Jr. - no relation to Jack Welch. Blueboar (talk) 12:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

re: Archive 3 * 47 Should the article focus more on the militia movement?

The term, for me, originated on talk radio. Listen please, the speeches and protests of the militia movement aren't all anti-government. You don't need to be anti-government to believe this theory and participate with the militia. I believe the best way to correct this defecit in understanding is to state other motivations. For example: anti-government, _, or _; _, _, and anti-government. Having read Linda Thompson back in the day I can find a link, http://www.zoklet.net/totse/en/politics/right_to_keep_and_bear_arms/d-day.html While I remember reading this article I don't respond to it as though it were anti-government. She had real motivations that deserve to be included. This is because the second amendment and martial law did not declare the citizens' militia to be hostile to the interests of the National Guard. There are other organizations I could include. I think you can see those are government. Some background is while not everyone was well-informed about Ruby Ridge, Waco happened and the radio was still going on about the Freemen. Arms legislation was a hot topic. The Second Amendment came alive in the media. I am not creating an account because of the current dispute about my identity without Habeas Corpus. 67.2.115.89 (talk) 02:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not creating an account because of the current dispute about my identity without Habeas Corpus. Fascinating, didn't know you could edit wiki from the position of unlawful detention in prison. You get cable/satellite TV too?Batvette (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

cable. 71.219.150.7 (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources that support other interpretations of the motivations of the movement? John Shandy` • talk 16:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's one: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/archive/index.php/t-43813.html 71.219.150.7 (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.150.7 (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

That is a forum thread and is not reliable. Please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. John Shandy` • talk 02:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is another one which is contemporary to the 1990s militia movement: http://www.zoklet.net/totse/en/politics/right_to_keep_and_bear_arms/militus.html 71.219.150.7 (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

How it conspiracy when all the presidents of the US talk about "new world order"? Wikipedia is becoming part of it, i suppose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spydercanopus (talk • contribs) 07:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

New_world_order_(politics). Regards SK (talk) 07:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Then is all that's neccessary to be part of the militia movement buying guns? 67.161.249.235 (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

"Notable" literature?

I think we need some discussion and agreement on criteria for listing a book in our section on Literature. As it stands, the section states that "The following is a list of notable published non-fiction books by New World Order conspiracy theorists:", which would imply some sort of limitation on inclusion (ie, to be listed, the book has to be considered notable." I don't object to this... but if we are going to limit the list to "notable" books, I think we need to include some sort of verification that the books we do list actually are notable in some way.

One option is to require some sort of evidence that the books are notable... for example, we could require citations (to reviews and other sources that discuss the books) to demonstrate notability. Another option would be to require that a Wikipedia article about the book be written prior to addition to the list (ie no red-links... and if the book article is deleted, the book would be removed from our list).

Alternatively, we could take a more inclusionist route... One option is to drop the word "notable"... change the section to "Further Reading" and allow any NWO book. (if we go this route, I would have concerns about the potential for fringe theorists to use this list to promote their books... and thus their theories). Another possibility would be to allow any "reliably published book... but not self-published ones.

Please share your thoughts. Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. --Loremaster (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I like the Further Reading option. Works that are specifically notable might be discussed elsewhere, with secondary sourcing. groupuscule (talk)

Would you prefer the "include any NWO book" variant, or the "include reliably published but not self-published" variant? (I would go with the latter). Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Although I am sympathetic to the self-published author, I must agree with you that allowing self-published works really opens a floodgate—particularly on this topic. I would agree to exclude self-published works (unless they are themselves described in secondary reliable sources). groupuscule (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

OK... it sounds like we have an initial consensus... shift from "Literature" to "Further Reading"... and in criteria shift from "Notable" to "reliably published". I will make the change and we can see if anyone objects.

Second Question: Is there a reason why we limit the list of books to those by NWO proponents? NPOV would indicate that we should also include reliably published books by those who are not NWO proponents (such as books that debunk the theories). Thoughts on that? Blueboar (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

This makes sense to me; possibly they should be differentiated with subsections. Also I wonder how many books that are not fanatical on either side, but address the "NWO" theories in a neutral way? Do these exist? groupuscule (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, that depends on what you mean by "fanatical"... would you call a dispassionate analysis of various NWO theories that also debunks them, "fanatical"? Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

"Fanatical" was a poorly chosen word. Really I'm trying to envision works that accept some "NWO" ideas as correct and reject others as false, rather than 'voting party line' on all the issues. In my experience the desire to "debunk" can become just as singleminded as the "conspiracy theory" itself. groupuscule (talk) 17:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

While it is true true that debunkers tend to be fairly united in saying that all NWO theories are hogwash... it is important to realize that there is no real "party line" among NWO theorists themselves. They often disagree with, and contradict each other (especially when it comes to claims of who is behind the supposed conspiracy). So, yes... there are works that accept some NWO ideas and reject others. ("That theorist got it wrong... I know the actual Truth"... is a great sales pitch when you want people to buy your book.) Blueboar (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

/literature section/

71.221.65.162 (talk) 08:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC) "The following is a list of reliably published non-fiction books that discuss New World Order conspiracy theories."

^the above line, found at the top of the literature section, makes it sound as if these are reliable sources on understanding the various new world order conspiracies and some of the epistemological and ontological problems with the theories, as the rest of the article discusses. But all the books listed are books that very unquestioningly support the idea that these conspiracy theories are actually facts. it is not that they shouldn't be listed, but I believe that it should be noted that these books are all in uncritical support of concepts that the entire article is critically analyzing.

I also think that books critically analyzing these theories should be listed as well, like the books listed above in this 'talk' page. I would add more to the list, but i actually came to the page in search of leads on literature critically analyzing conspiracy theories. I think this type of literature definitely belongs listed on the page itself.

I haven't ever looked into those books, but if there are books uncritically supporting these conspiracy theories, they should be either labeled as such or removed per WP:UNDUE. The article is semi-protected to prevent vandalism from unregistered editors. But if you register an account on Wikipedia, you'll be able to make some of these proposed improvements yourself. Although editors are welcome to edit anonymously, we invite them to register in pursuit of building a culture of accountability for edits and in pursuit of easier communication, since names and aliases are easier on the mind than IP addresses. John Shandy` • talk 15:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the info, I will be getting to this very soon Joe everynameistoosimilar (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The Last Will and Testament of Cecil John Rhodes

This article is false in it's assertions regarding Cecil Rhodes.

Per WP:V, The Last Will and Testament of Cecil John Rhodes is here for verification: [5]

It states (p. 73): "What an awful thought it is that if we had not lost America, or if even now we could arrange with the present members of the United States Assembly and our House of Commons, the peace of the world is secured for all eternity. We could hold federal parliament five years at Washington and five at London. The only thing feasible to carry this idea out is A secret one (society) gradually absorbing the wealth of the world to be devoted to such an object. There is Hirsch with twenty millions, very soon to cross the unknown border, and struggling in the dark to know what to do with his money; and so one might go on ad infinitum."

He also states (p. 74): "It would have been better for Europe if Napoleon had carried out his idea of Universal Monarchy; he might have succeeded if he had hit on the idea of granting self government to the component parts. Still, I will own tradition, race, and diverse languages acted against his dream; all these do not exist as to the present English speaking world, and apart from this union is the sacred duty of taking the responsibility of the still uncivilized parts of the world. The trial of these countries who have been found wanting---such as Portugal, Persia, even Spain---and the judgment that they must depart, and of course, the whole of the South American republics. "

He continues: "What a scope and what a horizon of work for the next two centuries, the best energies of the best people in the world; perfectly feasible, but needing an organization, for it is impossible for one human atom to contemplate anything, Much less such an idea requiring the devotion of the best souls of the next 200 years. There are three essentials--- (1) The plan duly weighed and agreed to (2) The first organization (3) The seizure of the wealth necessary."

This is also noted in the NYT: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F00811FB395412738DDDA00894DC405B828CF1D3 Pottinger's cats (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

proposed edits to 'further reading', can't do it myself

I have attempted to edit the 'further reading' area, but still cannot (i believe i was 'autoconfirmed' only, which seems to be the problem).

I propose starting the 'further reading' section with the sub-title "The following is a list of non-self-published non-fiction books that critically analyze New World Order conspiracy theories", followed by a reading list as follows (in part borrowed from above in this talk page) -

-Barkun, Michael: Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America, University of California Press, 2003. -Coward, Barry, ed. (2004). Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theory in Early Modern Europe: From the Waldensians to the -French Revolution. Ashgate Publishing. ISBN 0-7546-3564-3. -Fenster, Mark: Conspiracy Theory. Secrecy and Power in American Culture, Minneapolis 2008 -Goldberg, Robert Alan: Enemy Within. The Culture of Conspiracy in Modern America, New Haven, London 2001 -Knight, Peter: Conspiracy Theories in American History. An Encyclopedia, Santa Barbara, Denver, Oxford 2003 -Parish, Jane (ed.): The Age of Anxiety. Conspiracy Theory and the Human Sciences, Oxford 2001 -West, Harry G & Sanders, Todd (eds.): Transparency and Conspiracy. Ethnographies of Suspicion in the New World Order, Durham and London 2003

i also propose changing the sub-title of "The following is a list of non-self-published non-fiction books that discuss New World Order conspiracy theories" to "The following is a list of non-self-published non-fiction books that assert the existence of various New World Order conspiracy theories", which should be followed by the list of books currently found into the 'further reading' section.

the last thing i am proposing is that the last book listed, by Whitemiller, be removed, as it is a book of axioms and has nothing directly to do with new world order conspiracy theories. Joe everynameistoosimilar (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I would oppose your proposed change of sub-title. We can not limit our "further reading" only to books that "assert the existence" of the theories... that would be POV... we also need to include books that attempt to debunk the theories, as well as those that neutrally discuss the theories (without drawing a conclusion about them). Blueboar (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I ask for the inclusion of the Cyprus bail out details where they are being forced to accept a haircut from Germany and EU and IMF banks as the unprecedented first sign of the NWO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.127.244 (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I ask for reliable sources making this connection. SK (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Obvious bias

From the use of the dubious and vague term "ultraconservative" onward this article is filled with left-leaning polemic and terminology masquerading as NPOV, a common theme here on Wikipedia. (Couldn't we more precisely describe Pat Buchanan as a paleoconservative? Do we ever resort to calling, say, Noam Chomsky or Ralph Nader "ultraliberals" on Wikipedia.)

Example:

"That is why conspiracy-focused movements (JFK, UFO, 9/11 Truth) are treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work of truly left-wing progressives who are marginalized from mainstream public discourse."

Which "centers of power" and how exactly do they "tolerate" conspiracy-focused movements? What's a non-left-wing progressive? How do we distinguish "truly" from "not so truly" left-wing progressives and how are those in the "truly" category "marginalized" exactly? This has the feel of humanities department musings whereby you must agree with the professor's entire theoretical framework to accept his or her judgments on social issues as products of an unbiased mind.

And where does this supposedly NPOV originate? The source provided:

Berlet, Chip (Fall 1998, revised 4/15/99). Dances with Devils: How Apocalyptic and Millennialist Themes Influence Right Wing Scapegoating and Conspiracism. Retrieved 2009-07-23.

Unsurprisingly, this title appears to be something of a polemic. It might be better to simply quote Berlet, a known left-wing activist, and attribute this interpretation directly to him rather than insert the author's interpretation as Wikipedia's NPOV. If not, you might as well start accepting Ann Coulter's sourced opinions on various topics as useful in formulating Wikipedia's NPOV.

This is a good example of why highly polemical statements from any political corner shouldn't be inserted as NPOV: you have to swallow numerous unspoken but entirely debatable suppositions--often couched in vague but judgmental language--in order to arrive at the supposedly neutral perspective. I think Wikipedia can be a bit more solid in this area.

24.113.107.171 (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems that much of the knowledge in this wikipedia entry is based on the writings and research of people like Barkun and Fenster, people who have PH.D's in fields of study necessary for understanding this particular topic from an analytical point of view, like Political Science for example, and have spent large parts of their careers studying this specific topic. Though Berlet is a more well known name (and one demonized in more right-leaning conversations), his ideas and his research are not the only thing discussed or used in this article. Ann Coulter, on the other hand, specializes in a subsection of corporate law, and her contributions should only really be considered useful or authoritative in her area of specialty.

While i can understand that this article may seem to be 'left-leaning' to those familiar with conspiracy theories coming from the perspective of conspiracy theorists, it is actually true that almost any academic source willing to engage with various aspects of the "plot theory of history" relating to 'nwo' theories considers it to belong to the heritage of 'right-leaning' philosophical traditions. The only academics who to my knowledge disagree with this, are those few who themselves believe in and advocate for various 'conspiracy theories', and not all of them disagree with this notion either. Because the topic being discussed comes from a 'right-leaning' philosophical background, it is very difficult to critically analyze 'conspiracy theory' without "sounding" as if coming from the left, just as it can be very hard to be critically analyze 'communist theory' to those who would advocate for it without "sounding" as if coming from the right.

disclaimer- i did not write this article, only noticed this article last week, and have only barely contributed on the talk page. Joe everynameistoosimilar (talk) 06:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I hope then someone would pull out their copy of "The Naked Communist" and write an article on communist theory (conspiracy theory). 67.161.249.235 (talk) 13:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This has to be one of the most blatant POV articles I've ever seen on Wikipedia. I came to this page hoping to find information, but found an anti-conservative rant page instead. The "History of the Term" section sounds like it came straight from The Daily Kos or Media Matters DrHenley (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It's something of a shame that the comment here about the obvious bias of the article employed an IP address rather than a WikiPedia user handle since he or she is, I must agree, absolutely correct. the article fails fairly badly at being NPOV and is overwhelmingly biased upon the supposition (however appropriate) that there is no legitimacy behind the evidence indicating that there is indeed a "New World Order" afoot since, well, there is. :)

The core issue is that the corporate drive to commit a "New World Order" is not a conspiracy insofar as the corporate take-over of governmental institutions and the overall control of world economies for the financial benefit of a few at the detriment of the world's teeming masses is concerned. The imposition of a "New World Order" is obvious yet it's not a conspiracy, ergo the defacto supposition that the "New World Order" is a conspiracy theory fails on its face.

If I may, I would like to add that I am a Hume-class Skeptic, I run The Skeptic Tank and have for many decades, even before the old DARPA Net became the Internet, and I have publications in numerous skeptical newsletters, magazines, and started the compilation of the scientific debunking of claims of the paranormal even before SCICOP was founded. I mention it to avoid getting labeled and dismissed as a wide-eyed lunatic arguing without reason. Rather I'm finding that the main Wikipeida on the New World Order as well as this article covering the supposed "conspiracy theory" about the New World Order to be lacking in NPOV and fraught with logical fallacies and what is known as selection bias in scientific circles.

Obviously the core of corporate dominance efforts which form the basis of the actual "New World Order" exists, it's an on-going effort, but equally obviously there is a great deal of abject lunacy in the tack-on unevidenced, untestable beliefs that are also associated and accumulating under the banner of the "New World Order." So in point of fact one can not dismiss the NWO as a conspiracy theory, instead one must address each aspect of claims concerning the New World Order each on their own merits.

Some will be factual and verified, most will be untestable, many will be obvious nonsense. So I agree fully with the OP here, the article is not NPOV and it is overwhelmingly biased. Damotclese (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Bias

I just wanted to point out that this article is very anti right wing and presents Rightists as the only people who believe in conspiracy theories. I've spent most of my life among the far left and many of them also believe in such things sharing the idea with the right. There must be added more left wing point of view to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.57.129 (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The article is a reflection of the sources it cites. If there are sources you're aware of that support what you'd like to see in the article, by all means share and introduce them. I forget which source, it's either a Chip Berlet or Michael Barkun source, but there's one that covers how people on the left have been wooed into accepting right-wing conspiracy theories. So I don't think it's so much that people on the left can't or don't hold conspiracist views, but that the conspiracy theories they believe originate from the right, or at least have some right-wing underpinnings. But as for bias, Wikipedia's place is not to offer balance or eliminate bias if that bias actually derives from the prevailing literature (the references, essentially). Wikipedia should channel the views of the authors of the cited sources, and should only seek to remove editor bias. Please see WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE for further detail. I've known a few left-leaning individuals who believed in conspiracy theories, but do you have any sources that you think address the problem you perceive with the article? John Shandy` • talk 01:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the article needs to be rounded out better. Suitable references supporting the core corporate behaviors that are part of the legitimate "New World Order" should be added, including some details about the non-police entity and non-elected entity Interpol which is increasingly a tool of the corporate New World Order.

What we're finding is that people who believe the outrageous claims being lumped under the umbrella term get their information from unreliable sources and would be dismissive of all evidence which debunks said beliefs just as much as people who employ skepticism and critical thought toward the examination and debunking of claims are also highly biased against supportive evidence which contradicts their own preconceived notions.

One could list pros and cons in support of and in debunking of the endless claims being applied under the banner "New World Order" until every damn page on the Internetz is referenced and in the end is falls to belief. Posting references in support of aspects of the supposed conspiracy won't do anything to alleviate the failed NPOV in the article since, well, human nature is what it is. Damotclese (talk) 01:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky

Chomsky is not a conspiracy theorist, and when he talks about the emergence of post-Cold War 'new world order' with reference to 1990s 'humanitarian interventions' he is clearly and explicitly referencing George Bush Senior's comments to the same effect. If nothing else, he makes no claims about secret or invisible cabals, no claims about conspirators as such (that is, individuals and groups deliberately working together to deceive and/or otherwise exploit or harm populations). Instead, he points to clear structural biases that are supported by any number of political economic statistical analyses. He is criticising the exercise of US-power in what many respected academics, politicians, theorists and analysts of international relations were calling (at the time Chomsky was writing about this) a 'unipolar' international order, following the collapse of the Soviet Union. This is very different from proposing a secretive and carefully planned, intentional and organised, 'conspiracy' of the sort implied by the term 'New World Order' as it is used by conspiracy theorists. I can't remove the section on Chomsky because the article is locked, but if this is what passes for 'information' on a major Wikipedia article, I am starting to see why many academics remain so sceptical about the potential for this encyclopaedia to improve. In fact, the entire section above the Chomsky part is nonsense too! 'Marxists' never use the term 'superclass', and they don't speak of 'plutocracy'! Marxism is a vast and internally diverse set of beliefs and critical social scientific methods, but if you are going to make claims about what Marxists believe, at least get them in the right ballpark. Again, Marxists are absolutely not 'conspiracy' theorists, since (at least in its 'classical' articulations) the theory rests upon the principle that 'ideology' can obscure class divisions and class interests - the ruling class need not be 'conspiring', intentionally exploiting the proletariat, it is the economic base of society (social structure) that makes this happen, not the freewill or agency of individual or group 'conspirators'. It looks as though the entire section is based on someone's high school essay. Please delete it!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.225.30.130 (talk • contribs)

The citation is written by the editorial board for the World Socialist Web Site, and I can find no evidence that Chomsky is a member of the board. Furthermore, though it might be the kind of site I might read on occasion, I must admit that WSWS is the left-wing equivalent of Glennbeck.com, and so not a reliable source. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Ian's removal of the Chomsky paragraph. As for the preceding paragraph about Marxists, I quite agree with user 134.225.30.130 and I think perhaps at the very least, we need to attribute those views to the Party for Socialism and Liberation, which is the source cited by that paragraph. I don't know how much of a reliable source the PLS is on Marxism, but attributing the paragraph to their party's view may at least help the reader take into consideration that the view is from PLSweb.org. I invite user 134.225.30.130 to be mindful that this article does not necessarily, in its entirety, represent Wikipedia's finest work. It is also the case that many hands have passed through, shaping and molding this particular article, and not always for the better. But with time and thanks to diligent reading and reviewing such as what you have done in raising these concerns, the article grows ever stronger. Don't give up on it just yet. John Shandy` • talk 16:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is this called a "conspiracy theory"?

I'm not really sure why the One World Order is called a conspiracy theory. There is clear evidence that that US State Department is in favor of disarming everyone except for a United Nations Peace Force. This was published in DEPARTMENT OF STATE PUBLICATION 7277, released September 1961. Here is a copy of the publication.

Since the US State Department is in favor of disarming everyone except for the United Nations, isn't that the key element of a New World Order?

I think it's unfair and biased that this article does not reference any of the material supporting the One Word Order, such as DEPARTMENT OF STATE PUBLICATION 7277, or any of the other material listed in this article. Please give all the facts, not just the ones that leftists prefer.

We call it a "conspiracy theory" because conspiracy theorists like yourself point to this nonsense as evidence that it's real. JoelWhy?(talk) 13:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

We call it a "conspiracy theory" because it is a theory that states that a conspiracy is occurring (or has occurred). That is the definition of the term "conspiracy theory". Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

@JoelWhy, The "nonsense as evidence" is your personal subjective opinion, therefore you have no argument to claim the justification for this label. Xowets (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Re:DOS pub 7277... could you explain who says it supports the NWO theory? We are not going to mention it because some anonymous guy with an IP address says it does... we need to be able to point to at least a few prominent theorists who make the claim. Blueboar (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

There is allot of bullocks about conspiracy theories, but ... type this in google:

site:europa.eu "new world order" 

and you will get 86.500 results where the term NWO is literally used in speeches and texts on the official EU webpage europa.eu i'm not saying NWO is a conspiracy ment to kill 90% of the world population and that is ruled by reptilians (lol)... It is probably something like G8 or G20 but bigger and comparable to the EU (as EU government is already more powerfull/has more autorithy then federal government. i guess EU can be called New European Order and you'll get the point, i think NWO might be the same but on a global scale.) 109.131.70.216 (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The term "New World Order," as used in political speeches, etc, tends to mean something quite different than the NWO conspiracy theory JoelWhy?(talk) 15:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

@JoelWhy, You are wrong, either you are severly uninformed about this subject or you are a paid shill to infiltrate this article and divide it's honest editor, you have no credibility to justify general appearance of this article by using subjective opinion that you think the speeches talk about something else. As a matter of fact, this is a well known response from gatekeepers alike, a very poor excuse. Xowets (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

That's what I said above also. :) There is undeniably an effort by corporate entities to impose a "New World Order" globally, however it's not a conspiracy, it's above-ground and observed. At the same time there are endless unevidenced claims being made under the banner of the New World Order which is why the whole arena is called a "conspiracy theory."

There's some irony in this. The multinational corporate traitors and war criminals who owe no allegiance to any country are undeniably motivated in their efforts to acquire and consolidate wealth as a means unto itself, seizing the world's wealth and resources for the benefit of a miniscule few to the detriment of the 99% of the rest of the world's populace, yet after George Bush (the elder) employed the term in a press release, globally we started seeing actual conspiracy theories being heaped upon the term "New World Order" inappropriately.

Each individual claim issued under the banner of the New World Order must be evaluated on their own merits, one can not claim that the NWO is a conspiracy theory any more than one can claim it's not. Every claim must stand on its own, an umbrella term can't and should not be used to debunk an entire slew of claims.

Thus the irony: Who benefits best from the mud tossed in to the New World Order waters by the addition of endless outrageous claims about what the NWO is doing than the corporate entities committing their New World Order against us in the first place? :) It's one reason why this article failed to be NPOV and is highly biased. It lumps all the lunatic fringe beliefs and claims under the single banner where it becomes easy to dismiss the whole glut rather than evaluate each individual claim on its own. Damotclese (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 May 2013

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

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

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

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

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

NWO Proofs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some merging with New world order (politics)

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

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

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

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

Freemasonry

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2013

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

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

[6]

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

[7]

Thank you for taking the time to read my request.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clearly not neutral, regardless of claims

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you kidding me? You present the views of the extreme fringe - two of which I mentioned, the Armageddon and reptilian overlord loons - as if they were fairly representative of the believers in NWO as a whole. That's like offering up the Branch Davidians as representatives of Christianity; it's deliberately misleading. Also, what the fuck does Marxism have to do with anything? The opinions of marxists on this topic are of no more relevance than those of plumbers or basket-weavers. Being a marxist makes no one on an expert on this topic (or any other, for that matter), and is clearly the work of some hard-left nutjob who's using this article as a vehicle to express his own political views. Note all of these:

"The activities of conspiracy theorists (talk radio shows, books, websites, documentary videos, conferences, etc.) unwittingly draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from serious criticism and activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background. That is why conspiracy-focused movements (JFK, UFO, 9/11 Truth) are treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work of truly left-wing progressives who are marginalized from mainstream public discourse"

"Marxists, such as the members of the U.S. Party for Socialism and Liberation, reject conspiracy theories in general and New World Order conspiracism in particular because it produces false consciousness and cultism"

"Marxists conclude that the real solution is something right-wing populist conspiracy theorists would never advocate or contemplate: democratic socialism"

are nothing more than the rants of some college kid who wants to promote his own hard-left opinions as credible criticisms of NWO, which they clearly are not in any way, shape or form. These paragraphs have absolutely no place whatsoever in an article on NWO and very clearly violate several painfully obvious guidelines on writing articles for Wikipedia.

I mistakenly thought you'd be able to see this for yourself as the article is right in front of you and this sophomoric college-kid horseshit stands out like the steaming turd it so clearly is. Now I've corrected that mistake by providing you with several specific examples (although there are more throughout the article, these are the worst) of what makes this article a disgrace. Wikipedia is not the place to push your own political views, and whoever thought they were being clever in adding this crap needs a good bitch-slapping; it's idiots like these who make so many articles, which might otherwise be of some value, a joke, and why students everywhere are cautioned to take what's written in Wikipedia with a huge grain of salt.

To clarify, I'm not a conspiracy theorist of any sort; I don't believe that anything beyond a small group is capable of true conspiracy, especially given the numerous historical and contemporary examples of the lack of foresight, caution, and just plain intelligence of those powerful enough to pull it off. To put it bluntly, the people needed to execute the NWO just aren't plain smart enough, organized enough, or cooperative enough to execute it, nor will they ever be. NWO is, however, a fascinating social phenomena, and a fairly widespread one at that (especially in the United States), and is worthy of study from a scientific perspective.

Opinion polls

Please add this poll to the article. A survey by Public Policy Polling from 2013 says "28% of voters believe secretive power elite with a globalist agenda is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an authoritarian world government, or New World Order. A plurality of Romney voters (38%) believe in the New World Order compared to 35% who don’t" [8]

Not sure that poll results (any poll results, not just these) are really note worthy (or important) enough to mention in the article.

Something else to consider... It is likely that there are other polls out there that would give different results. As soon as we mention one set of poll results, sure as hell someone is going to insist that we balance that by mentioning some other poll result (one better matching his/her POV)... and then we will end up in a "battle of the poll results" situation, resulting half the article discussing various polls... at the expense of the real purpose of the article: Neutrally outlining what the various proponents and detractors of the theory say. Blueboar (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm totally indifferent about this theory and I'm not trying to insist anything, but I think it would be helpful to add this poll results. I also didnt find any other polls about this theory so I dont see how it can turn into a battle. Even if it does, theres nothing wrong with it. There's a separate article called Opinion polls about 9/11 conspiracy theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.108.247 (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I'm pretty sure a consensus will be unobtainable for this as poll results are generally considered to be WP:OR. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

In this case it wouldn't be OR... the requested addition is essentially a direct quote from the webpage of the folks who conducted the poll. But getting consensus first would be a good idea anyway. Blueboar (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd still be more comfortable with an academic secondary source (or sources) that sums up the variety of polls by area and time, displaying trends. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Link in "History of the term" section

In the section "History of the term", the text gives a quotation from George W Bush's 9/11/90 New World Order speech and a link is provided in the text to a very brief video clip from that speech. Why? None of the quoted words are heard in that clip, so I suggest the link be removed. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Requesting removal of Marxist reference

I'm requesting permission to remove the reference to the Party for Socialism and Liberation in the criticism section on grounds that they are a Communist organization and too far to the left to be credible source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 02:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

They are a perfectly credible source for documenting their own views on the matter, which is exactly how the article treats their views. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't get how they're a credible source considering that they're far-leftist group. Did you even see their ideology? I don't mind there being a criticism section. I just want there to be credible sources to them. Perhaps their quote could be replaced with someone elses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 22:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a tool to spread your political beliefs. To censor them because you disagree with them would be no better than writing articles from a Marxist perspective.

There is noteworthy criticism of NWO conspiracy theories by Marxists. Why bother citing a non-Marxist source that could be a strawman argument by an outside group when there's already a source that pretty conclusively demonstrates what that Marxist criticism is? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with my beliefs. It just that they aren't a credible source because they are too far to the left to be a trust worthy source. The fact that they are listed as a far-leftist group is a red flag.

If you want to replace them, I have a better source from the Southern Poverty Law Center. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/fall/patriot-paranoia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 00:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

What part of "they are trustworthy to establish their own views" do you not get? The only real argument you could make here is that their views are not noteworthy, which would be rather hard given the particular group cited meets the notability guidelines. Their inclusion isn't any sort of validation of their views, and the only apparent reason you're giving to remove them boils down to you disagreeing with them. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I know that this page doesn't hold any validation for their views, but this is Wikipedia. We're supposed to reference trustworthy sources. Like I said this has nothing to do with my views and everything to do with them being an irrelevant source. It you able to reference a more moderate Marxist website that isn't far-leftist you're welcome to do so, but Party for Socialism and Liberation is not a moderate source. How different would it be to reference a neo-Nazi organization. I wouldn't say that citing far-leftist or far-rightist quotes are good for clean Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 01:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I do see a problem here is using the party as a source for Marxists in general, and the party itself seems pretty small to justify using them this way. A better source would be useful. Dougweller (talk) 10:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The group is way too small to be quotable. I'm going to replace it with the Southern Poverty Law center reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.201.165.130 (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Scratch that. I can't seem to edit this page without approval. The group is too small to be a worthy source. If some with access to editing this page can change it that would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.201.165.130 (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The groups ideology looks a little too biased to be quotable. I have to agree with the previous comments on this one. Can anyone with permission to edit this page do so? The Southern Poverty Law Center link sounds like a better source to quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.141.186 (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm replacing the Marxist reference with the Southern Poverty Law center reference. The Party for Socialism and Liberation doesn't even symbolize a majority of Marxists in genera anyway. If anyone can find a Marxist reference that is credible your welcome to use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 15:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2014

Please take the 'conspiracy theory' off this article. Numerous presidents have talked about it, so how can it be a 'theory'? this website should be bipartisan and anyone reading it should be able to make whatever decision they choose by it's content, not from your direction on how they should perceive it! Pegathee

Pegathee (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Per Conspiracy theory, a conspiracy theory is an explanatory proposition that accuses two or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an illegal or harmful event or situation. Content on Wikipedia is guided by a number of policies and guidelines. According to verifiable reliable sources, the whole New World Order thing is clearly a conspiracy theory. In short; it stays. WegianWarrior (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Pegathee... note that the term "conspiracy theory" is in parenthesis... this is called disambiguation, and tells you that there is more than one article that goes by the title "New World Order" ... the one you seem to be talking about is New world order (politics). Blueboar (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

How can I add this part in a neutral way?

How can I add this part in a neutral way?
Nevermind what I wrote here, I think it's better not to add this. Bokareis (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Peter Knight additions

I just sent a mail to Peter Knight

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

I have no knowledge of whether Mr Knight is reliable or not - if you want his information to influence Wikipedia it's up to you, not me, to show that his input is valid. Where are his published papers? Where are his peer-reviewed papers? I'm not saying he has none, but I'm saying that it's up to you to find them and show him to be a reliable source. If you don't understand that, then I'm not surprised Wikipedia makes less sense to you every day.

You should note that I'm not saying that "Peter Knight doesn't know what he is talking about", nor do I say anywhere "that he writes nonsense". You shouldn't insinuate such things when they are patently untrue. All I said was that it was up to you to justify the inclusion, not up to us to justify the removal.

You have one valid point though - the sentence was not grammatically correct, so I've fixed it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It isn't that Mr. Knight is "not-reliable"... it's that what he says is contradicted by lots of other sources that are more reliable. The idea that the emblems on the Great Seal of the United States were in any way influenced by Freemasonry is a common myth... repeated by many people (even by well intended, but misinformed Masons)... but it has been thoroughly debunked. It's a matter of WP:DUE WEIGHT. The sources that debunk the connection between Freemasonry and the seal out weigh the sources that say a connection exists. Blueboar (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

That said... if we are now citing Knight for something he does not say... we should remove the citation. Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Moved from my talk page, as it seems more appropriate here. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure emails aren't under WP:Identifying reliable sources, since they're hardly verifiable. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Valid reliable reference?

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

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

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

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

Please point to problematic portions of the article, or suggest how a neutral article would look. Otherwise, your post is useless complaining.

However, do note that you yourself agree that the conspiracy theory is wrong. We do not give "equal validity" to both sides of a discussion when one is rejects and is rejected by mainstream science, history, and academia; and so in describing the facts of the conspiracy theory, it is described as wrong. This is no different than our article Earth having a strong bias against beliefs that the earth is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

How does the Earth being flat or hollowed have any correlation to this topic? All you did was take an irrelevant subject, and juxtaposed it to modern alternate theories. Not too mention most of these concurrent "theories" have yet to be completely (and scientifically) debunked. The error in this page was pointed out in the fact that it goes into extra efforts to emphasize that all these theories are false, instead of taking a neutral stance. I couldn't agree more with the fact that the only articles on Wikipedia where I run into this problem are those of controversy. So, without an irrelevant juxtaposed, can you please explain to me why Wikipedia fails to take a neutral stance on this subject or any other controversial subject.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:fb90:270e:ddda:5eda:7640:7e69:87ac (talk • contribs)

When Wikipedia decides to be "neutral," that means it presents information according to the broader academic and journalistic consensus. It does not mean that it creates an illusion of equal validity to views that are outright delusional and utterly rejected by mainstream academia. The comparison with the flat earth is that as flat-earthers make delusional claims about the shape of the earth that we do not give a false sense of equal validity; so to do conspiracy theorists make delusional claims about the shape of society that we do not give a false sense of equal validity.

It is not mainstream academia's job to "debunk" the theories (although many are debunked if you do any real homework), it is the conspiracy theorist's job to present proper evidence that can be recognized as such by anyone. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

If you ever have a chance walk the halls of American politics and government departments (let alone those of European universities) you will find that ideas of one world government, whether conceived in normative or explicitly political terms, are overwhelmingly considered inevitable and welcome future outcomes of post-1945 developments. Asking for proof of this is disingenuous as complex political events are not available for the purposes of proof or falsification. It is necessary to consider the success of powerful academics such as Alexander Wendt, Peter Singer, Thomas Pogge and other one world rationalists against the complete marginalization of particularists of various forms. The conspiracy theorists may be hung up on ridiculous details such as the Illuminati myth, yet they are much closer to understanding the momentum of events than many would like to believe. However, whether this is alarming or not depends entirely on your own political inclinations.

ILLUMINATI

wikipedia is run by illuminati, spreading false deception — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.209.55.142 (talk) 03:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

In all fairness, and as a Conservative, myself, I would happily give this page an A if I had assigned the writers to cite historical events that support a correlation between Conservative thinking and the NWO conspiracy theory. Needs focus. C- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.241.189 (talk) 04:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2015

Fix year "22014" in reference #9. 85.245.212.103 (talk) 09:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Harry S. Truman and freemasonry

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

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

What importance/relevance would that have for the article? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it have relevance? He was the President of the United States, and a freemason. Since there is an article on freemasons, and it talks about possible connections to the Founding Fathers, why is a subarticle about freemasons and more current presidents irrelevant? 2607:FB90:270E:DDDA:5EDA:7640:7E69:87AC (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me try this again. If you look closely at the article, you'll notice that the material discussing common motifs in conspiracy theorist fantasies cite reliable academic source that is independent of conspiracy theorism for each portion. That's because Wikipedia does not propagate any sort of original research, especially conspiracy theorist fantasies, and so we just summarize what reliable and mainstream academic sources say without addition, interpretation, alteration, or elaboration.

Now, what mainstream academic sources do you have that demonstrates that Truman being a Freemason is a common theme in conspiracy theorist fiction? Merely going with "freemasons are mentioned in the article" and "Truman was a mason" is synthesis of unrelated sources to make statements neither makes, which goes against our policy on original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, so you just assume I'm making the presumption that Truman was a Mason. Based on the idea that I think that every president is a freemason, right? That right there, that attitude, is a complete reflection of what's wrong with this page.

By the way, it says it right here on Wikipedia.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/treasure/treasure_hunt_02.html

2607:FB90:270E:DDDA:5EDA:7640:7E69:87AC (talk) 06:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I suspect what Ian.thomson is pointing out as synth and OR is the idea that Truman being a mason has any bearing on the NWO conspiracy theory... if there is no mainstream sources that tie the two together, it don't belong in this article. WegianWarrior (talk) 08:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, Harry S. Truman, a Freemason none the less, was the President who formed the National Security Agency. Isn't the NSA a part of the spying, or mass surveillance, that's taking place on every U.S. citizen? Yet, It's not mentioned anywhere in this article, specifically the part about 'mass surveillance'. Isn't that odd? 70.90.174.173 (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

It is not at all odd for those who follow Occam's razor and our policy against original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists are often inconsistent... and one of the inconsistencies of the NWO conspiracy theory is that while proponents make a big deal about FDR being a Mason, they rarely even mention that Truman was a Mason. The amount of coverage our article gives to things has to be based on the prevalence of coverage in sources... and that means lack of mention in sources has to equate to lack of coverage in this article. It would be UNDUE for Wikipedia to mention Truman when the NWO conspiracy theorists themselves don't bother to mention him. Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Bin Laden

This was brought up by an IP at Talk:Illuminati, but it seems more relevant here. This source has a gov't official saying that "bin Laden was probably an avid conspiracy theorist," and it and others discuss books about 'the Illuminati.' I haven't found a source saying that he believed he was opposing 'the' NWO yet, but it may come up. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2015

reference number 47 has wrong link. The right link is : http://www.scientiapress.com/carroll-quigley Vikrantsingh47 (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Done Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 00:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj9507&article=950722
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/141107
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://richardkahn.org/writings/culturalstudies/reptoidhypothesis.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory about a world government already existing

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

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

2015-01-03 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.158.174 (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/andrew-grice/andrew-grice-this-was-the-bretton-woods-of-our-times-1662231.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090308125433/http://www.apologeticsindex.org:80/c174.html to http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c174.html#crj
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/140578

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

There is an EXTREME and blatant bias in this article.

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

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

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

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

See WP:GEVAL. Wikipedia doesn't create artificial balance by giving WP:UNDUE validity to WP:FRINGE claims.

The Berlet source does need better in-line attribution, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I've removed that paragraph. And the tags, which don't belong in the middle of section in any case. I don't think a brand new editor who claims that " Nazis are proven to have left-wing beliefs" can add such tags from an unbiased perspective. Doug Weller talk 10:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. There is one important piece of information from the early history of the New World Order that is still missing, indeed, the definition of "New World Order" as presented by such hawks as Lindsey Williams, and really everyone I remember talking about it during the early 90s. You can find it under the heading of the McAlvany Intelligence Agency's definition of the term "New World Order." I will not attempt to state it here because it is not OR. This is an important consideration for anyone who attempted to credit or sympathize with the term "New World Order" as such in the 80s and 90s. 173.14.238.114 (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Extreme, Shameful Bias

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

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

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

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

I am reading this out of interest and i am disgusted with how political this article is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.37.84 (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Read this article with a open mind hoping for a educational experience and all you end up with is a bad taste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.37.84 (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

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

United Nations?

Is there any reason why the subject is treated so dismissively? The idea of a single world government is not a fringe position. It is often called globalization. It isn't really a theory that many people are working towards such goals. The theory seems to be more about whether such a structure is good or bad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.135.183 (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you want New world order (politics) which is not about the conspiracy theory. Doug Weller (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

So why isn't any of that in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.135.183 (talk) 14:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

No I'm in the right place. The article is just very poor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.188.153 (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Then you are confused. This is an article about the conspiracy theories surrounding the concept, not the political concept itself. It looks poor from your perspective for that reason. Doug Weller talk 13:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Reason why the goal of NWO looks confusing...

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

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

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

The tricky part is that Wikipedia does not allow original research... we will need reliable sources that lay all this out... otherwise we can not mention it in the article. Blueboar (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Created a temporary section for adding sources and maybe refine into prose: Talk:New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory)/13_Secret_Families --Ne0 (talk) 05:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

First... most of the sources you provide are not considered reliable (the various youtube videos, for example). Second, even if we omit those, you still have a WP:SYNTH problem. What you are doing is presenting us with bits and pieces of "evidence", in an attempt to "prove" that your theory about these families and their goals is correct. the problem is that Wikipedia does not work like that... it is not our job (as editors) to present "evidence" and attempt to "prove" things... our job is to report on what others (reliable sources) have said, and the conclusions they have reached. We can't include the conclusions unless there are (reliable) sources that takes all the bits and pieces of "evidence" you have presented, and tie it all together... explicitly stating the conclusion that these families have (disparate) conspiratorial agendas.

Suggest you create a blog or website of your own... then you can lay out your theory and present your evidence to the world without having to worry about Wikipedia's restrictions. Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Just to add that while you're welcome to create your own website/blog don't assume that said created blog is a realiable source and then can be used to back up claims in Wikipedia. As alluded to above, all sources need to meet certain criteria before they can be called reliable. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

What's going on ? why censor a discussion ? Also, I intend this to go under illuminati or it could be a separate theory. As for sources, what better proof than video ? Or is there a Wikipedia 'guideline' saying video dosen't qualify as a legitimate source ? --Ne0 (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, yes, there is such a guideline... see: WP:IRS. YouTube videos are not considered reliable, since any idiot can make one.

That said... I think you miss the point... we are not looking for proof... what we are looking for is a source that examines the proof, makes all the connections you have made, and reaches the same conclusions you have made. We don't care if you can prove that the "13 families" have their own agendas, if you want to include it you need to show that someone else (a reliable source) has examined the evidence and reached this conclusion. We don't care if you can prove that some event or trend "proves" what the 13 families are up to ... what we need is for you to cite someone else (a reliable source) who proves it... someone who has examined the same data that you have examined, who reaches the same conclusions you have reached... and (most importantly) has published it all in a reliable venue. Otherwise, everything you present to us is nothing but WP:Original research... a conclusion that you have reached, based on your own examination of data and your own logic. Your logic may be perfectly sound... we still don't want it. Why? Because we don't allow original research. Sorry, but those are the rules. Blueboar (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Rockefeller dreams by their own admissions, and Rothschilds dreams judged by their actions, are different. Now the real question is, will self-incriminating videos like [9] be considered a reliable source or not ? what about [10] --Ne0 (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Short answer: Nope, nope and nope. We're done. Blueboar (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Subpage nominated for deletion.[11] Doug Weller talk 20:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Mass surveillance and Edward Snowden / Mark Cline

I just got finished reading the section can concerning Mass surveillance, and I noticed that there's no information pertaining Edward Snowden/Mark Klein or their revelations of the mass surveillance state/room 641a. The whistle being blown on room 641a pretty much confirmed the fears of conspiracy theorists, as well as proved them, right to an extent. 66.87.68.234 (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

That is a good point. --Loremaster (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Loremaster I wouldn't be sure how to word it myself, but maybe a few lines on a correlation between the mass surveillance and the revelations of the men mentioned above world be appropriate? 97.32.132.139 (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Careful... We need sources saying this ... Otherwise it would be considered Original Research. Blueboar (talk) 13:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Blueboar Does the Washington post count as a reliable source? 70.90.174.173 (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Well... that depends on the specific article appearing in the Post, and whether it actually supports the specific phrasing that you want to add to our article. If you can provide a link to the Post article, we can examine it and see if it works or not. Blueboar (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2016

4.31.10.254 (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

How is it a "Conspiracy Theory" when you can watch the Media say it?

The media continues to say (just like today on Fox news), a "New World Order might be approaching"

Here are 3 articles today: 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-new-world-order/2017/01/01/fc54c3e6-ce9d-11e6-a747-d03044780a02_story.html

2. http://www.euronews.com/2017/02/02/orban-waits-to-be-on-right-side-of-new-world-order

3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerry-jasinowski/scary-new-world-order_b_14334856.html

It's OBVIOUSLY not a "conspiracy theory". That credit would go to CIA document 1035-960 which proves that the CIA made up the term: https://projectunspeakable.com/conspiracy-theory-invention-of-cia/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.64.8 (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

There's this thing called the future and this other thing called the past. They're in opposite directions on this thing called time. Opposite means "not the same, as far away from the same as possible." Things in the past happened before now. Things in the future have not happened yet. Those may be very hard concepts for you, but you need to understand the difference in order to get what's going on here.

The news articles you cite discuss the possibility of future changes ("new") to how things work ("order") in the world. They are not claiming that there was, has been, or still is an existing secret society that controls the world.

In other words, your claims that those articles prove the existence of the New World Order mentioned in conspiracy theories is like claiming that the possibility of a nanotech Grey goo proves Paracelsus's legendary alkahest can be found in every hardware store on the planet; or that still nascent Genetic engineering technology proves that the mythical Minotaur is as well documented a historical figure as Abraham Lincoln. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There is no "it" here; that's a "them.". That is, the different sources are using the words in subtly different ways from each other, and in vastly different ways from the conspiracy theory. As nations', states', corporations' and political movement's fortunes change, the way the world runs changes with them in response. That's a simple fact. On the other hand, the changes are not necessarily driven by a single linked set of shadowy forces acting in concert; that's a conspiracy theory. Anmccaff (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

And we have New world order (politics). Doug Weller talk 05:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on New World Order (conspiracy theory). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090805093622/http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/externalisation/contents.html to http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/externalisation/contents.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325113304/http://w2.eff.org/Privacy/TIA/20031003_comments.php to http://w2.eff.org/Privacy/TIA/20031003_comments.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807131645/http://www2.pslweb.org/site/News2/2021559999?page=NewsArticle&id=14431&news_iv_ctrl=1261 to http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2/2021559999?page=NewsArticle&id=14431&news_iv_ctrl=1261

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Typo

In the first paragraph "ideology" is spelled incorrectly. 50.75.197.19 (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)