Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:34, 27 March 2023

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the New World Order conspiracy theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Do not feed the trolls! This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

	New World Order conspiracy theory has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 9, 2009 Peer review Reviewed April 4, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative views Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: American High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Secret Societies (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Secret Societies, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Secret SocietiesWikipedia:WikiProject Secret SocietiesTemplate:WikiProject Secret SocietiesSecret Societies Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Organizations High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. International relations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

External links modified (February 2018)

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/20091212030333/http://watch.pair.com/merovingian.html to http://watch.pair.com/merovingian.html

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) 10:50, 17 February 2018 (

Biased/slanted article intro

An appropriate edit to be made here is to move the Rothkopf and/or the Marxist interpretations into the intro paragraphs of this article. The last sentence of the intro paragraphs, specifically: "Those political scientists are concerned that mass hysteria over New World Order conspiracy theories could eventually have devastating effects on American political life, ranging from escalating lone-wolf terrorism to the rise to power of authoritarian ultranationalist demagogues", should be followed up by the Rothkopf/Marxist interpretation as a counter to this, in saying that through elite ran neo-imperialism and capitalistic/financial globalization, there is a legitimate risk of western civilization descending into a new form of totalitarianism on a possible global scale. 1-2 extra paragraphs for the intro on this is not a big problem. If there's an argument against, there should be an argument for, one based off of elite theory and geo-political reality, and shouldn't be buried to the bottom half of the article. As it currently stands, this intro is slanted to one side, and can miseducate people on what is a vital civic matter by using loaded words and one-sided analysis for the intro, which most people wont read past especially when so much of the intro is filled with stigmatized, loaded language. Just my two-cents that I feel would make this article much better and educational. I'd attempt the edit myself but its protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.214.235.80 (talk • contribs)

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)

There is no conspiracy theory of the New World Order. This article is misleading because it is old and out-dated and should be re-written to known information about the NWO as planned openly by the WEF, the WHO, the UN and all their related unelected global NGO’s. Janetaco (talk) 05:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@Janetaco: One of Misplaced Pages's core policies is WP:Verifiability. Where are your reliable sources to support your claims? Robby.is.on (talk) 09:12, 8 March 2023 (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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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/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)

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)

Conspiracy Fact

Conspiracy theory what is the word invented by the CIA. When all the conspiracy theories become fact, what do we call them? 2600:1700:4AB0:D460:FD87:3D61:B1A5:871 (talk) 08:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources telling us that any of them have become fact yet, so we don't have to worry about that. HiLo48 (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

WEF hasn't gotten the message

WEF discussion on the New World Order I know that isn't a reliable source, but when the WEF openly discusses it and says that they're trying to achieve it, then it contradicts the narrative of this article that it's a "conspiracy theory." One of the weirdest things about this topic is that Western establishment media is saying that it's a fallacy, while the WEF elites openly use the phrase in discussions about how they're trying to reorganize global governance. 108.18.156.124 (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no single, unarguable definition of New World Order. So what you think you're talking about when you say New World Order may be very different from what a particular speaker at WEF means. HiLo48 (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

New World Order. Names . We got them right where we want them! Help fight! Research my posts!

Screen shot the below for me! They are trying to control all of us! I swear it’s true! We can win if you all trust me. My name is Evan Paul Chieda. I am innocent! They are lying about me. You know me as CannabisKissX These implants can suppress and remove memories and they are able to add false memories into your mind. They are able to totally control human beings and make them rape others and eat human flesh and organs. These people call themselves Ebin. A new species of sub human. They are completely evil. They have had their emotions tampered with through this technology. They now have programmed computers for brains. Unable to be creative and have a sole identity and individual consciousness. The women are made to enjoy being raped and the men can’t stop. They are all psychopaths! They have even admitted to this!!! China is involved in this . Tik tok is a spy and mind control application. It is used in conjunction with the brain implants. Brain washing kids and adults to be over sexualized. That’s what these implants do. That is the intent. They are building a harem. 2601:644:4400:5520:CD0B:6D4B:518E:EA03 (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Social sciences and society good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class Skepticism articles
• High-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• GA-Class Alternative views articles
• Top-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• GA-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• GA-Class American politics articles
• Low-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• GA-Class sociology articles
• Mid-importance sociology articles
• GA-Class organization articles
• High-importance organization articles
• WikiProject Organizations articles
• GA-Class International relations articles
• Mid-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles