This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tom harrison (talk | contribs) at 23:49, 6 February 2013 (rm soapbox - not what the talk page is for). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:49, 6 February 2013 by Tom harrison (talk | contribs) (rm soapbox - not what the talk page is for)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | 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. |
| 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. |
|
| 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  |
 | 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | |||||||||||||
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
 | 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.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. |
|
| 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 |
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.
Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages should accurately reflect this viewpoint. Furthermore, the threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages:External links guidelines page:
Misplaced Pages articles may include links to web pages outside Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Misplaced Pages article unless its inclusion is justifiable.
What should be linked
- Misplaced Pages 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.
- 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.
- Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages: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)
- That is a forum thread and is not reliable. Please see Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources. John Shandy` • talk 02:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
How it conspiracy when all the presidents of the US talk about "new world order"? Misplaced Pages is becoming part of it, i suppose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spydercanopus (talk • contribs) 07:28, 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)
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)
"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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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)
- I like the Further Reading option. Works that are specifically notable might be discussed elsewhere, with secondary sourcing. groupuscule (talk)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
NEW WORLD ORDER ( CONSPIRACY CONJECTURE)
Conspiracies are not real theories, please change the title to "New World Order (conspiracy conjecture)" or else will someone please clarify the validity of this New World Order to be a true "theory". 21:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)###CosmiCxComrade
Conjecture Part of Speech: noun Definition: speculation, assumption Synonyms: conclusion, fancy, guess, guesstimate, guesswork, hunch, hypothesis, inference, notion, opinion, perhaps, presumption, shot in the dark, sneaking suspicion, stab in the dark, supposition, surmise, theorizing, theory ANTONYMS: FACT, PROOF, REALITY, TRUTH
- You'd be right if that's how we arrived at the title, but we rely on what the most common terms are, and you'll find vast numbers of users of 'conspiracy theory' in the media, books, etc, but 'conspiracy conjecture'? I don't think so. We have replaced the word 'theory' with 'hypothesis' in some articles but in this one theory is the word that's used. Dougweller (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- On Misplaced Pages, we have to use the same terminology used by reliable sources. If the majority of reliable sources on a topic use the term "conspiracy theory", then Misplaced Pages should accurately reflect this. Furthermore, the threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. --Loremaster (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- (A New) (World order): compare them. Is this dialectical analysis? 67.161.249.235 (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2013 (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 Misplaced Pages, 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)
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 Misplaced Pages. (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 Misplaced Pages.)
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 Misplaced Pages's NPOV. If not, you might as well start accepting Ann Coulter's sourced opinions on various topics as useful in formulating Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- Misplaced Pages good articles
- Social sciences and society good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
- All unassessed articles
- GA-Class Skepticism articles
- High-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- GA-Class Alternative views articles
- High-importance Alternative views articles
- WikiProject Alternative views articles