Talk:New World Order conspiracy theory/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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/20130310080017/http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3075 to http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3075

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 11:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Totally Bias And Partial.

Wall Street, The Federal Reserve, and the Warburg Family needs to be addressed.Paul Warburg, in order to be on the board of the Fed left Wells Fargo and Jacob Schiff replaced him.This is a bias and partisan article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:51CB:7B38:910E:A082:9C63:33DB (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

This whole article reads like a conspiracy theory about right-wing conspiracy theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.234.225 (talk) 09:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The article makes no attempt to discuss the subject objectively and should be deleted. Bougatsa42 (talk) 08:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

You may be looking for our article entitled: New world order... which covers the non-conspiracy stuff. Blueboar (talk) 09:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Blueboar: I'm afraid not. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Please add references for the following statements

Under section: Criticism

"Domhoff, a research professor in psychology and sociology who studies theories of power, wrote in 2005 an essay entitled There Are No Conspiracies. He says that for this theory to be true it required several "wealthy and highly educated people" to do things that don't "fit with what we know about power structures". Claims that this will happen goes back decades and have always been proved wrong."

"Partridge, a contributing editor to the global affairs magazine Diplomatic Courier, wrote a 2008 article entitled One World Government: Conspiracy Theory or Inevitable Future? He says that if anything nationalism, which is the opposite of a global government, is rising. He also says that attempts at creating global governments or global agreements "have been categorical failures" and where "supranational governance exist they are noted for their bureaucracy and inefficiency."

"Warning of the threat to American democracy posed by right-wing populist movements led by demagogues who mobilize support for mob rule or even a fascist revolution by exploiting the fear of conspiracies, Berlet writes that "Right-wing populist movements can cause serious damage to a society because they often popularize xenophobia, authoritarianism, scapegoating, and conspiracism. This can lure mainstream politicians to adopt these themes to attract voters, legitimize acts of discrimination (or even violence), and open the door for revolutionary right-wing populist movements, such as fascism, to recruit from the reformist populist movements."

"Hughes, a professor of religion, warns that no religious idea has greater potential for shaping global politics in profoundly negative ways than "the new world order". He writes in a February 2011 article entitled Revelation, Revolutions, and the Tyrannical New World Order that "the crucial piece of this puzzle is the identity of the Antichrist, the tyrannical figure who both leads and inspires the new world order". This has in turn been the Soviet Union and the Arab world. He says that inspires believers to "welcome war with the Islamic world" and opens the door to nuclear holocaust." "

(gnanvit (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2018

Gyorgy Soros = NWO Liston62 (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 02:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

They want us to add what would be a BLP violation. Doug Weller talk 11:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Isn't it

tendencious to label articles with the tag "(conspiracy theory)"

It is obvious — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.20.240 (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Not always... When a theory explicitly states that a conspiracy exists (as this one does) it is quite appropriate to label that theory as being a “conspiracy theory”. Theorizing that a conspiracy exists is the literal definition of the term “conspiracy theory”. It is obvious. Blueboar (talk) 13:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Chip Berlet

I suppose it doesn't matter that Chip Berlet, who is invoked throughout this article, is a Communist of the Enver Hoxha school (that's Communist Albania, hardly a haven of free-love, free-thought, or hippie anarchism). And that's not even a "conspiracy theory." You can read all about Berlet at http://www.discoverthenetworks.com/individualProfile.asp?indid=1243.

I remain mystified at how people who advocate state regulation of everything in existence see themselves as enemies of "authoritarianism." To advocate government control of everything, even even by a benevolent government, is by definition authoritarian and even totalitarian. I suppose it's the same sloppy thought that has them condemning some "nationalisms" while supporting others (you know, Arafat, Sinn Fein, Castro, ETA, etc.). 98.66.43.239 (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Nope, doesn't really matter because an inflammatory and gossipy profile on "discoverthenetworks.com" (which is an outlet of David Horowitz Freedom Center) is not a reliable source. This all seems to be based on a decades-old association with an advocacy organization, about which no information is provided other than its association with Albania. Not every obscure connection is vitally significant, and correlation is not causation. Grayfell (talk) 02:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Article uses ridiculously vague and sensational language, out of context of any person's viewpoint

the paragraph:

Observers note that the galvanizing of right-wing populist conspiracy theorists such as Linda Thompson, Mark Koernke and Robert K. Spear into militancy led to the rise of the militia movement though the 1990s.[18] The movement's anti-government ideology was (and is) spread through speeches at rallies and meetings, books and videotapes sold at gun shows, shortwave and satellite radio, fax networks and computer bulletin boards.[15] However, it is overnight AM radio shows and viral propaganda on the Internet that have most effectively contributed to their extremist political ideas about the New World Order finding their way into the previously apolitical literature of numerous Kennedy assassinologists, ufologists, lost land theorists and, most recently, occultists. From the mid–1990s on, the worldwide appeal of those subcultures transmitted New World Order conspiracism like a "mind virus" to a large new audience of seekers of stigmatized knowledge.[6] Hollywood conspiracy-thriller television shows and films also played a role in introducing a vast popular audience to various fringe theories related to New World Order conspiracism—black helicopters, FEMA "concentration camps", etc.—theories which for decades previously were confined to radical right-wing subcultures. The 1993–2002 television series The X-Files, the 1997 film Conspiracy Theory and the 1998 film The X-Files: Fight the Future are often cited as notable examples.[6]

It uses superfluous language like "mind virus" with no context relating to the paper on mind virus, or any of the sources. The sentances are written weirdly. The whole thing sounds like a personal essay Multilocus (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree the section is written more essay-like than neutral and encyclopedic, in terms of diction and syntax. I read some sentences that came off as kind of jarring or just weird. Just because the subject is esoteric doesn't mean the article has to be. Anyway, for starters, I've added subsections to help navigate that particular section. May go through and re-word in more neutral language fit for general readership in the near future. If anyone wants to help with that it's welcome.Thelovelyconch (talk) 03:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I made some edits to clean up the history section. If anyone disagrees with how I did it we can talk about it here.Thelovelyconch (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2019

In the Cold War Era: it is not: "After the fall of COMMUNISM in the early 1990s" This is a perpetuated misconception and ignorance repeatedly made by american authors to instill fear in the readers. It was SOCIALISM. Communism is the aim, the ideal society where there is just one class of the people and total equality is attained. Communism has never been achieved and is a propaganda technique by capitalist agitators to defy the understanding of the happenings in the socialist block behind the iron curtain. It is ignorant to keep naming socialism communism and proves the uneducatedness of the journalist. Thank you. 46.114.38.80 (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Please establish a consensus for this change before making such an edit request. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

To become a Featured Article

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

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

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

External links

From the Wikipedia:External links guidelines page:

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

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

What should be linked

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

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

Internal links

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

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

I agree with Verdatum which is the reason I have and will continue to remove these internal links. --Loremaster (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Literature

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

• Parish, Jane (ed.): The Age of Anxiety. Conspiracy Theory and the Human Sciences, Oxford 2001.

In this book: Alasdair Spark: "Conjuring Order: the new world order and conspiracy theories of globalization", 46-62, Nigel James: "Militias, the Patriot movement, and the internet: the ideology of conspiracism."

• West, Harry G & Sanders, Todd (eds.): Transparency and Conspiracy. Ethnographies of Suspicion in the New World Order, Durham and London 2003.

In this book: West and Sanders: "Introduction", 1-37, Daniel Hellinger: "Paranoia, Conspiracy, and Hegemony in American Politics", 204-232, Susie Harding and Kathleen Stewart: "Anxieties of Influence: Conspiracy Theory and Therapeutic Culture in Millenial America", 258-286, Jean Comarof and John Comaroff: "Transparent Fictions; or, The Conspiracies of a Liberal Imagination: An Afterword", 287-300.

The may also be bits on NWO in

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

as well as in

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

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

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

I thought I'd just put that up here. As soon as I get to read these in depth, I hope to be able to contribute. Maybe others take an interest in some of these texts. If they are not always suited for this article, I guess they are still relevant for adjacent ones, like conspiracism, for example. 78.55.218.66 (talk) 06:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you User:78.55.218.66. Those are very good sources. If you intend on contributing directly to the article at some point, I suggest you create a user account since it is extremely useful for an editor (such as giving him the ability to more easily watch over pages he is interested in) but it also contributes to a culture of accountability on Wikipedia. Despite the fact you will probably use a pseudonym, it's easier for other editors to discern your motivations when a track record of contributions is attached to your user account. Lastly, as this article gets closer to becoming a featured article, it will most probably become a target for vandalism by cranks so an administrator will have to put a semi-protection on it which will prevent them as well as good anonymous contributors such yourself from editing it. So seriously think about it. --Loremaster (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Lenin page, conspiracy theory section

So I've added a conspiracy theory section to Lenin biography which keeps getting deleted. I think that's a perfectly valid section to have. What do other people who document conspiracies think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berehinia (talk • contribs) 03:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2020

It should be noted that what you refer to as a "conspiracy theory" is supported with video and audio proof. There are more world leaders speaking of a New World Order than one can imagine. To find this evidence one simply needs to google "politicians speaking about a New World Order. How can this subject be a "conspiracy theory" when such evidence exists? It's more of a conspiracy fact. 208.84.129.57 (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Mass surveillance not a conspiracy theory.

NSA with google(android, search engine and youtube), apple(smartphones/tablets and computers) and facebook knows everything about us. Whats the conspiracy about this? They even have facial recognition and digital prints to open the phones. Documents from wikileaks and Edward Snowden revealed this.

Where does the article state that the NSA's mass surveillance is a conspiracy theory? I don't see that. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020

Removed : ‘conspiracy theory’, NWO is now widely published and factual. 2A02:C7D:8C12:9F00:D074:7537:4608:B07A (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I doubt that. In any case, to make that change we'd need reliable sources that back up your claim. Robby.is.on (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Danski454 (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Notable Believers section

@Blueboar: Howdy. Just wanted to let you know that I disagree with this revert. Probably an uphill battle since it's a "good article" with lots of editors and opinions. But the section I added is definitely useful and a time saver. Took me a couple of minutes to read through the prose and figure out who was just mentioned vs who actually believed the theory. Which is why I created the section. To save time and concisely present useful information. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• Respect that... however, there are several issues with the list: 1) it omits context. The NWO conspiracy is not one single theory, but multiple theories with intertwining threads. Different proponents believe different things, and they often disagree with each other. Creating a “list of believers” makes it seem as if they all believe the same thing... which they don’t. 2) As it was, the list was woefully incomplete... focused purely on modern TV and Radio personalities, and omitting historical “believers” who actually played a larger role in the history and development of the theories.

Sometimes trying to simplify and “save time” actually does the reader a disservice. Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion

Note: Could the page be edited to include the use of the term Neuordnung in Nazi propaganda, referring to a world order due to historical significance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.72.98 (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Could the page reference the occasions where United States President George Bush spoke the words "New World Order" to delineate the use of the phrase as opposed to this conspiracy theory? 76.72.80.157 (talk) 12:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• We actually have an entire separate article for things like this... see: New world order (politics) (which is already linked on the page). Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2021

changee charachterised to charachterized ChristianMorey (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: "Charactise" and "characterize" look like they're just words that have spelling differences between American and British English. According to Wikipedia's policy on English variants, "An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of English to another." Unfortunately I can't find any words in the article that would indicate what variety of English it's using, happy to be proven wrong. HoneycrispApples (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2021 (2)

Please replace "characterised" with "characterized" because the rest of the article uses American spellings ("stigmatized" and "center" for example, not "stigmatised" and "centre"), so "characterised" is a misspelling in that context. 64.203.186.94 (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2021

Please remove

nudging people constantly and covertly in the direction

and add

constantly nudging people covertly in the direction

Thank you. 64.203.186.94 (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done Alduin2000 (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

New world order date is ready and no longer a conspiracy

110.175.163.230 (talk) 05:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 06:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

2020 Covid

This page needs updating to recognize recent events. I think we have to accept the New World Order has arrived. Unlock please, so an open discussion is possible, or are Wiki admins part of the problem?

Our articles aren't places for discussion at all, and talk pages are only for discussion of the article, not the subject. As our articles depend upon reliable sources you'd need sources adding Covid as part of the conspiracy theory (note this article is about the conspiracy theory, you seem to have missed that also). Doug Weller talk 11:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

First at all, an article is about a subject, therefore it is impossible to talk about the article and not to talk about the subject. Second, the NWO is not only a conspiracy, it is something real and the politicians themselves have admitted when talking in formal speeches. 83.38.50.30 (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Again, we require reliable sources. IF there are reliable sources that say someone has connected Covid to the NWO, then we can discuss it. As it is, all we have is an anonymous poster on the internet hinting that there might be some connection (not even saying it out right).

As for your second point… there is a HUGE difference between politicians talking about a new world order, and The New World Order that is talked about in conspiracy circles. This is why we have a separate article about what the politicians say (see: New world order (politics))Blueboar (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2021

Correct the reference title "As it True What They Say About Freemasonry" to "Is it True What They Say About Freemasonry", and add S Brent Morris as coauthor. 70.175.192.217 (talk) 02:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thank you! ––Sirdog9002 (talk) 04:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2021

Add "widely discredited" to the opening sentence "The New World Order (NWO) is a conspiracy theory which hypothesizes a secretly emerging totalitarian world government."... On YouTube, the only thing shown to users on videos that are tagged with a link to this is:

"The New World Order (NWO) is a conspiracy theory which hypothesizes a secretly emerging totalitarian world government."

so if a user doesn't click the label/link, that's all they'll see.

2601:18D:8D7F:E084:ED99:38C:C534:242A (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2021

A key Australian Government Official (New South Wales’ chief health officer) stated prima facie that a "New World Order" is upon us.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/australia-new-world-order-conspiracies-b1917082.html

The title and body of this article should be changed to reflect that this is not a conspiracy theory any longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReturnsGreaterThan (talk • contribs)

Someone saying new world order in the context of saying the new normal is not irrefutable evidence of a world wide conspiracy to establish a one world government. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Dajjal?

Should the Islamic antichrist, Dajjal, be included?

Not sure… what do reliable sources say? Blueboar (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe Sheikh Imran N. Hosein has spoken on the topic (talk) 10 September 2021

References

More speeches by George H.W. Bush

Can we agree to include the speeches if we cut-out the credits/ref to the "not a reliable source", and actually copy the "not a reliable source" integrally, because the "not a reliable source" is using "reliable sources" itself ?

• diff

If not, what do you all suggest to improve the article?

--Mick2 (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

If that source is citing reliable sources, why aren't you using those instead of the unreliable source? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. --Mick2 (talk) 06:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I can guarantee you that no one will ever accept a video posted by "WakingTheMasses1776" as a reliable source. What you need is secondary reliable sources discussing the speech in the context of the New World Order conspiracy. Using primary sourced videos and making your own interpretations is not allowed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• Are you aware that we have a separate article on New world order (politics), where we already discuss the use of the phrase by various politicians (including H.W. Bush). Blueboar (talk) 12:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Penzance - COVID-19 stickers (33).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2022

Potential reference of another aspect of the New World Order, an interview with Zen Benefiel and Dr. Jeffrey Mishlove for New Thinking Allowed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VU0ZY7p2jhQ&t=1795s Zen Benefiel (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Australia Health Minster confirms new world order is linked to covid. Please remove this as "conspiracy theory"

Dr. Kerry Chant, the Chief Health Officer of New South Wales, sent social media into a frenzy on Thursday, after she referred to a post-lockdown “new world order” during a Covid-19 press conference.147.161.167.2 (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

This expression exists independently of the conspiracy theory being discussed in the article. It seem unlikely to me that Dr Chant's use of it had anything to do with this topic. And Chant is a public servant in one state of Australia, not the Australian Health Minister. HiLo48 (talk) 02:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what she said, Wikipedia supports the lockdowns in Australia and doesn't care how many people are gulag'd as a result. Shameless, I bet the ancestors of the Wikipedia founders are rolling in their ashen graves. 124.169.136.111 (talk) 08:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I have just left a formal welcome for you on your home page of your IP address. Please have a good look round at those links provided there, and learn a lot more about Wikipedia. I think you'll it works very differently from the way you think now. HiLo48 (talk) 10:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2022

Another related article: https://mothershipcafe.com/messy-antics Zen Benefiel (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocked this guy. Here just for self-publicity, see also User talk:Zendor. Doug Weller talk 08:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2022

Remove conspiracy theory. There is no way to determine what a conspiracy theory is unless proof with out a doubt has been presented. No such proof has been submitted that proves the new world order is a conspiracy theory therefore it can not be labeled as such Lars860 (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that conspiracy theory is inaccurate, there is evidence littered all over the place and information is being suppressed. Some parts of the theories have even been admitted out loud. To dismiss this as a conspiracy theory is slander against free speech and freedom of expression. The disrespect is palpable. If theory after theory proves true, how is it a theory? It's a plausible theory. To say otherwise is true disinformation. Please consider this seriously, there's difference between a conspiracy which is a legitimate concern in and of itself, but there's a difference been conspiracy and plausible theory. The logic is being carried forwards, there are some erroneous theories, and some correct ones, only time can tell, but slander is totally unnecessary. 2406:3400:60A:E040:C13B:492F:CBF:DEED (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• When it is theorized that a conspiracy is taking place, that is by definition a “conspiracy theory”. In this case, the term is not meant to be dismissive, but precise and descriptive. Blueboar (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Theosophical References

Hello, I'd like to add a section on The Theosophical Society, which is not really a secret society but one who does publicly state their own creation of a New World Order. Has this been discussed, or may I post and await a comment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XThe9thSignX (talk • contribs) 12:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

You would need reliable secondary sources to show that it was WP:DUE for inclusion. primary sources from the group, or self-published or unreliable sources are a no-go. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, I think there is a distinction between “A new world order” and “THE New World Order”. Blueboar (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Biden

President Biden confirmed that there is a new world order. Please remove this tag. Mouze52 (talk) 02:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Content in Wikipedia depends on what is said by reliable sources. Can you provide one to support your claim above? HiLo48 (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Again,belongs in New world order (politics). Doug Weller talk 16:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you not see the logical fallacy of circular reasoning you are imposing? If the New World Order (conspiracy) actually has truth, then it would be implemented by politicians. But then Wikipedia would call it "New World Order (politics)" even though New World Order (conspiracy) would be true at the same time. Please think about the logical fallacy you folks here at Wikipedia have created by giving yourself the ability forever to merely say "oh that belongs in New World Order (politicians)" even as "New Wolrd Order (conspiracy)" demonstrates at least some measure of truth. 2601:602:180:2C0:D84D:E082:906A:3A35 (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The definition given at new world order (politics) is "dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power in international relations". The conspiracy theory posits "a secretly emerging totalitarian world government". Those two definitions are not difficult to distinguish from each other, and distinguishing them is not "circular reasoning". A. Parrot (talk) 03:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

This whole incident is WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS, pure and simple Dronebogus (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Woodrow Wilson

The Lede is supposed to summarize the article and it summarizes the entire article except for the General usage (pre-Cold War) section under History of The Term. This is the first and most important historical fact of the usage of the term that is also covered here by many sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_world_order_(politics). The first revert was because i didnt provide a page and the second revert was because it needed more context. Its placement in the second sentence is the best spot because the third sentence already begins talking about the conspiracies.Foorgood (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Wilson being among the first to use the phrase is interesting background, but I am not sure it belongs in the lead of THIS article … this article really is focused on the various NWO conspiracy theories, and Wilson was not using the phrase in that context. Are you aware that we already discuss Wilson’s usage in some detail in our related article entitled New world order (politics)? THAT article is better fit discussing Wilson’s usage.

What we really need HERE is to fill the gap between Wilson’s use and the more modern usage of the phrase by conspiracy theorists. Do we know who the first writer to use the phrase in the context of describing a conspiracy was? Blueboar (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

But my sentence is appropriate because its mentioning the benign first use of the term from Wilson to describe global governance then the sentences that follow describe how conspiracy theorists exaggerated it. We can state: "Although Presidents Wilson and Bush used the term to refer to goals of global unity, conspiracy theorists would later exaggerate the idea into a conspiracy of malintent." To answer your question, HG Wells and the John Birch Society are mentioned further down as essentially the originators of the conspiracy so we can mention them instead if you wish. Foorgood (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Here this Cambridge University Press source says the conspiracy was led by the John Birch Society- you have to scroll down to page 170-171: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Culture_and_Order_in_World_Politics/kIHCDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1Foorgood (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok… I agree that Wilson’s use should start off the “History” section (as it now does)… and that this should be followed up by discussion on how the Birchers adopted the phrase and morphed it into a conspiracy term. However, I still don’t think it rates as something to mention in the lead. Again, the focus of this article is the modern conspiracy theories, and Wilson’s use is not part of that. In the context of conspiracy theory, his use is no more than a mildly interesting historical footnote… Worth mentioning briefly in the body text, but not important enough to highlight (which mentioning in the lead would do). Hope that explains my concerns. Blueboar (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Then the John Birch Society merits mention there since this Cambridge University Press source says they began to use the term as a conspiracy on pages 170-171: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Culture_and_Order_in_World_Politics/kIHCDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1Foorgood (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Possibly (certainly more than Wilson)… although I am not sure that any “first use” of the term merits being highlighted in the lead. Blueboar (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

We don't have to say "first" we can simply say: "Conservative groups like the John Birch Society led opposition against the idea of global governance after the term was used by various world leaders." It's exactly what the Cambridge University source says.Foorgood (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Was the phrase used sporadically for decades before it became part of conspiracy lore? A summary sentence, if included in the first few paragraphs, might need to note that its meaning varied based on the user. Llll5032 (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Did you not see it was used by Woodrow Wilson and hg wells? It's in the history section of the article.Foorgood (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I did. I pointed this out because the top should put facts and themes into context, in the ways summarized by the WP:BESTSOURCES. Llll5032 (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes and that's why the sentences I have offered are: "Conservative groups like the John Birch Society led opposition against the idea of global governance after the term was used by various world leaders." OR "Although Presidents Wilson and other world leaders used the term to refer to goals of global unity, conspiracy theorists would later exaggerate the idea into a conspiracy of malintent."Foorgood (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

A version of your second sentence might be DUE, if RS make this argument (we must be careful about WP:SYNTH). I think it should include some more specifics about dates and people, and formatted inline WP:FOOTNOTES with pages of cited sources. It may be more DUE as the last paragraph of the top, rather than in the first. Do you agree, Blueboar? Llll5032 (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Here is the source that says that same second sentence within one page https://books.google.com/books?id=j3SQDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA26&dq=woodrow+wilson+new+world+order+conspiracy&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi_-pq5u4v4AhUygnIEHYxLAvY4FBDoAXoECAcQAw#v=onepage&q=woodrow%20wilson%20new%20world%20order%20conspiracy&f=false. But because its the first historical mention of the term it belongs best as the second sentence because the third sentence and all the sentences after that discuss the conspiracy theories.Foorgood (talk) 04:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Curiously, footnote "a" in the politics article suggests that Wilson may not have have used the exact phrase but very similar phrases. Llll5032 (talk) 11:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Well this Rowman Littlefield source says he likely used it https://books.google.com/books?id=j3SQDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA26&dq=woodrow+wilson+new+world+order+conspiracy&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi_-pq5u4v4AhUygnIEHYxLAvY4FBDoAXoECAcQAw#v=onepage&q=woodrow%20wilson%20new%20world%20order%20conspiracy&f=false but regardless EVERY source says the first use of the term was in reference to Woodrow Wilsons league of nations vision post ww1. We are going in circles here.Foorgood (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The book (which is about a different subject) says "it is speculated" Wilson said it. Whatever we say, it should be careful and precise. Llll5032 (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes based on endless sources we can easily say: "Woodrow Wilsons vision for global unity after world war I introduced the phrase but it would later be used by conservative groups to describe a conspiracy of malintent." Not only do the endless sources say exactly that but this article and the new world order (politics) article say the same thing.Foorgood (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Do third-party RS use the phrase "global unity"? Were conservative groups the only groups opposed? Llll5032 (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me yes this source already says that https://books.google.com/books?id=j3SQDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA26&dq=woodrow+wilson+new+world+order+conspiracy&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi_-pq5u4v4AhUygnIEHYxLAvY4FBDoAXoECAcQAw#v=onepage&q=woodrow%20wilson%20new%20world%20order%20conspiracy&f=false and secondly, you know that the lede is supposed to be a summary of the body- all of this information is in the body.Foorgood (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

New World Order.

The United States President George HW Bush Jr. constantly mentioned and pushed the term the New world order. The new world order should not be viewed as a conspiracy theory it is a fact. 2600:6C48:777F:A62D:B8B7:352B:21A4:642 (talk) 13:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• You are conflating two distinct topics. Bush’s use of the term is covered at our article entitled: New world order (politics). This article, however, is about the conspiracy theory. Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

You are intentionally misleading readers to your chosen expounding of NWO. If that person conflated two distinct topics, this page merges and mashes three distinct topics and then uses the scapegoat of willfully limited perspective as the reason to not update the page to be correct, accurate, and proper.

Example: I could write a page about pizzas have bear poop.. and when people complain pizzas don't have bear poop, I can say "well this page is about pizzas with bear poop and therefore I am completely correct" ... all while I mislead people about pizza.

It's a shame this page is so poorly managed, MoreIntelligentThanAllFactCheckers (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

See User talk:MoreIntelligentThanAllFactCheckers who says they are going to post my name to Medium.com and Twitter. Doug Weller talk 14:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Say, Doug Weller, some of my buds at the Trilateral Commission want me to ask if you'd like to be in charge of world copper prices from now on. You in? EEng 23:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Great Reset and World Economic Forum

How come these two are not at least mentioned in this article? 2A02:2F0B:B705:2600:D992:F46D:DBBB:AD97 (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Because reliable sources that discuss the NWO theory don’t (yet) mention these things as being related to the theory.

For a topic like this, the most reliable sources will be historians who examine the theory, analyze it, and trace how it developed over time… and historians (of necessity) lag behind what proponents of the theory are claiming. Blueboar (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The Great Reset sources

The WEF’s Great Reset initiative also became interwoven with similar long-standing conspiratorial themes including those related to a supposed New World Order; or claims associated with Agenda 2030, part of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. The initiative has also been adapted to propagate denial and scepticism about the realities of climate change. In this case, it has been used to frame global warming as part of a plot devised to destroy capitalism. According to this narrative, climate action is really meant to control what we own and eat, and ultimately impose totalitarian rule. Narratives mentioning the Great Reset in the run-up to COP27 linked the conspiracy to the energy and cost of living crises, claiming the current situation had been deliberately provoked to facilitate state control.

A phrase that is often used to support the conspiracy that the WEF is planning to strip people of their liberties, possessions and private property is: “You’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy.” This originates from a 2016 WEF video and a subsequent series of articles by members of the forum’s Global Future Council where they made predictions about what the world would look like in 2030. It included statements like “we won’t transplant organs, we’ll print new ones instead” and “you’ll eat much less meat,” but it was the contribution of Danish MP Ida Auken that grabbed the most attention. Writing from a city in an imaginary future, Auken described a world where technological advancements had made transport, accommodation and food free. “Welcome to the year 2030,” she said. “I don’t own anything. I don’t own a car. I don’t own a house. I don’t own any appliances or any clothes … Everything you considered a product has now become a service.”

The Great Reset has also been a motivating factor toward violence in some cases. In October 2021, the neo-fascist Forza Nuova group took part in violent anti-vaccination protests in Rome and targeted a hospital emergency room as part of their fight against the Great Reset and the country’s green pass (COVID-19 vaccination certificate).

Spread of the Great Reset conspiracy

ISD has tracked the spread of conspiracy theories regarding the Great Reset from the beginning. After the WEF initiative was launched on 3 June 2020, the first video describing the call-to-action as a “New World Order power grab” was posted four days later on alt-tech video platform Bitchute. The video has since been viewed over 100,000 times. Towards the end of June, an op-ed written by Justin Hawkins of the Heartland Institute, a leading climate change-denying think tank, was published on Fox News, in which he wrote the Great Reset’s “socialist outline is clear: destroy the global capitalist economy and reform the Western world.”

https://www.isdglobal.org/explainers/the-great-reset/

Have at it wikiactivists that like to pretend like there are not reliable sources linking the two terms, and go ahead and edit Institute for Strategic Dialogue to prove to other editors how it can't possibly be a reliable source /s.

• https://www.amazon.com/Against-Great-Reset-Eighteen-Theses/dp/1637586302
• https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-57532368
• https://www.visionofhumanity.org/the-spread-of-the-great-reset-conspiracy-in-the-netherlands/

2A02:2F0B:B500:5A00:8D78:C617:4C54:3B0B (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposed rename from 'theory' to 'theories', and removal of brackets

1. More than one theory is detailed in the article body, hence plural form may be better than singular form. One is inclined to think that there is no single, concerted, unified theory describing a (single, concerted, unified) conspiracy. 2. Why remove brackets? A reason is that the phrase 'New World Order' - in rare but notable cases - is neither a conspiracy, nor referred to by conspiracy theories, as evinced by the ordinary use of the phrase in the New world order (politics) page. Therefore, 'new world order' is a mere descriptor of the 'conspiracy theor[ies]'. Hence, we may agree that the crucial expression in the article title is 'conspiracy theory' rather than 'new world order'. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 08:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)