Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory)

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.

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) 21:36, 2 August 2021


 * Interesting how you characterize the left-wing interpretation as inherently "legitimate". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:5178:E400:5993:4E9F:AED5:A0B8 (talk) 00:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I added the date to the contribution you responded to. Nobody has been interested in it for two years. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:23, 7 August 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)
 * Seems to me these people have an "ends justify the means" mentality. If one has to make lying and Deception the way to fundamentally change the world, chances are no one would want it. 174.251.209.55 (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Just as with any expansive subject there can be multiple and layered facets, interpretations, objectives, etc. Labeling the NWO as a conspiracy theory is inherently dismissive and reductionist. During the INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE THE "NEW WORLD ORDER" A RECIPE FOR WAR or PEACE! sponsored by Perdana Global Peace Foundation in 2015 there is very explicit delineation of what the NWO will consist of and how it is to be implemented: https://rairfoundation.com/flashback-former-malaysian-prime-minister-warned-elites-want-to-reduce-world-population-to-1-billion-videos/. We are currently seeing it coming to fruition via among other tactics, the WHO power grab, via which all nations will cede sovereignty to the WHO (https://jamesroguski.substack.com?utm_source=navbar&utm_medium=web&r=ez5o2) along with the civil rights of their citizens - freedom will no longer exist. Kittyflop (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * (After Edit conflict) The source of that article, the RAIR Foundation, describes itself as "a grassroots, activist and investigative organization comprised of everyday Americans leading a movement to reclaim our Republic from the network of individuals and organizations waging war on Americans, our constitution, our borders and our Judeo-Christian values." That's clearly not an objective starting position. It assumes that the corruption and evil acts they claim are happening, simply ARE happening. The fact that it claims that Mahathir Mohamad claimed that the NWO is happening, proves. nothing. Have you paid any attention to any other claims from Mahathir Mohamad? Do you know anything else about him? One obscure article in an obscure publication (we don't have an article on the RAIR Foundation) proves absolutely nothing. This is not a useful contribution to this article. HiLo48 (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Georgia Guidestones
Someone needs to update this part under New World Order: they have been blown up. One source: https://www.npr.org/2022/07/28/1113855150/a-georgia-monument-was-destroyed-locals-blame-conspiracy-theories 72.162.228.254 (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2023
the NWO being a conspiracy theory.. its not a theory. Ronald Reagan gave a speech citing the words for a future NWO. so did bush sr. get with the facts

this isnt annedit but why ive come to see from wickedpedia. these days- wickipedia is nothing more than liberal agenda trash, hiding truth for a far left narrative.

get writers and editors who are independent, unbiased *factual* writers who write facts not this fictitious narrative 24.184.169.217 (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done:  Heart  (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2023
A conspiracy just means two or more people are involved in a common goal. So a conspiracy is actually correct for this theory. 104.218.65.3 (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. --Pinchme123 (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

We must work together to build a *new world order*. This is how we can do it
It's literally the title of a WEF initiative: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/12/we-must-work-together-to-build-a-new-world-order-china-russia-us/ 86.120.128.190 (talk) 01:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Did you read past the title? Did you notice that the ONLY time the expression "new world order" is used is in the title of the article? Those three words on their own are harmless. It's just an expression to collectively describe the changing relationships between countries and regions in the period the article describes. It is NOT a threat to anyone or anything. It is NOT a conspiracy theory! HiLo48 (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's literally the title of this article. Wikipedia article should NOT cherry-pick things that are strictly about "negative" usages".  If other people use the term, the current article should at least mention it and explain the confusion, not pretend that the term is "a conspiracy theory" and nobody at the world economic forum uses it.  86.120.128.190 (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You don't get it. The article is not about those three words, it is about a certain concept which is connected with those three words. And your link contains those three words in the title, but is not about the same concept. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Theories about the WEF's "Great Reset" are linked to the New World Order theory, does that help? I was honestly surprised to see no mention of the WEF in this article. —  🌼📽️Anemone  Projectors💬  17:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly, I find writing about this stuff quite painful. As soon as I do some nutter or nutters will arrive with a collection of ridiculous conspiracy theories about all this. Have you had a look at our Great Reset article? The final paragraph of the lead there describes the problem well. HiLo48 (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * wow name calling, best way to have a discussion, very mature!
 * if it's that painful, don't do it?
 * good luck, peace 69.172.161.194 (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And? This article is about a conspiracy theory, and I've shown how in modern times it has been linked with conspiracy theories about the WEF and the Great Reset using a credible source (by Wikipedia's standards) known as the BBC. As the previous poster said, if it's painful, don't do it. — 🌼📽️Anemone  Projectors💬  16:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Denver Airport
I think that the Denver Airport should be mentioned because many people who believe this New World Order conspiracy usually cite the Denver airport's delays in building, size and large amounts of spending. Maybe a section should be added for it? BasedGigachad (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

WEF
An IP editor recently posted that the article should have a section on the World Economic Forum (WEF). The post was (correctly) removed, as it was essentially just a rant (trying to convince us of the truth of the claim). However, I do think this is something we need to consider. In recent years there has been an increasing trend for NWO conspiracy theorists to focus on their belief that the WEF is somehow tied to the NWO… and that is a trend that I think our article could mention (if for no other reason than completeness in explaining what the theorists claim). I doubt this trend rates an entire section -it is still a relatively new addition to the whole NWO zeitgeist, and thus may not (yet) be commented upon by reliable sources that analyze the shifting trends in NWO theory… but perhaps it does rate a sentence or two in passing? Please discuss. Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "thus may not (yet) be commented upon by reliable sources" You are answering your own request. We can not add something without available sources. Dimadick (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ”Thus MAY not (yet) be commented upon”… but MIGHT be (I don’t know… That’s why I am asking for some discussion). I am definitely not suggesting that we add unsourced (or poorly sourced) material… just noting that we have a gap in our coverage of the topic. And since there are editors here who have a much better sense of the sourcing than I do, I am asking them to look into it. Nothing more.  Blueboar (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There is a perfectly reliable source that I gave in an above section a short while before this discussion started https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-57532368 — 🌼📽️Anemone  Projectors💬  16:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This response “There is a perfectly reliable source that I gave…” is within itself biased and problematic. One source is never perfect or reliable but you already knew that. This is why wiki suffers and constantly has to beg for money.  You want to lie to people and spread a narrative that we with our own eyes know to be untrue.  There is absolutely no conspiracy theory that millions of third world non-conforming non-contributing people have been sponsored from around the globe to relocate and break laws by illegally invading all first world countries at the exact same time.  You have no integrity or ability to tell the true.  You just deflect from your perfectly reliable paid source.
 * https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2023/05/28/a-new-wave-of-mass-migration-has-begun Anflexboi (talk) 05:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is why wiki suffers and constantly has to beg for money. Do a quick web search on Wikipedia's finances and you will find that Wikipedia is doing just fine. Wikipedia asks for donations to be independent from corporate interests.
 * The rest of your post is just outright nonsense and not supported by The Economist article you linked to. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Who said I want to lie to people? Conspiracy theories about the WEF are linked to the NWO conspiracy theory. That's a fact. I didn't come here to claim that the NWO is a real conspiracy. I would go on social media if I wanted to do that. Did you read the BBC article? You know what the BBC is don't you? — 🌼📽️Anemone  Projectors💬  17:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Having looked into it a bit further… the problem is indeed that the conspiracy theory connecting the WEF to NWO is too recent for scholarly (ie reliable) sources to have picked up on it (ie comment upon it). That will probably happen… but it has not happened YET. To mention it now would give it UNDUE weight. Blueboar (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 13 July 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. I don't see an oppose. (closed by non-admin page mover) Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 14:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

New World Order (conspiracy theory) → New World Order conspiracy theory – The practice of placing the phrase "conspiracy theory" directly after the name of said conspiracy theory is common in other Wikipedia articles such as Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, white genocide conspiracy theory, and Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory. And WP:NCDAB recommends using natural disambiguation over parenthetical disambiguation when possible. PBZE (talk) 05:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not opposed - however, I do note that we have other articles that use parentheses… examples: Spygate (conspiracy theory) and Shadow government (conspiracy theory). So it isn’t as if this is a consistent convention either way. Blueboar (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think "Spygate" is commonly used to refer to the conspiracy theory itself, which might explain/justify the variation. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support – The article isn't about a new world order, it's about the conspiracy theory about a new world order. If it wouldn't belong at the title "X" (WP:PRITOP aside), it shouldn't have the title "X (disambiguator)". jlwoodwa (talk) 06:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation is needed to distinguish this article from New World Order (politics). The question is simply whether to disambiguate parenthetically or not. Blueboar (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In the interest of finding a crux, do you think "Red Scare" needs to be disambiguated from "Red"? jlwoodwa (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well… the word “Red” itself needs disambiguation (for example, we have articles on Red (political adjective) and Red (nickname)). As for Red scare… I think that is an irrelevant example - because the term “Red scare” does not need disambiguation while the phrase “New World Order” does.
 * Note that I’m not arguing that the non-parenthetical New World Order conspiracy theory is in some way an unacceptable form of disambiguation… I’m just noting that with NWO there is a need to disambiguate, and that the other NWO article uses parentheses. Make of that what you will. Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think Red Scare is relevant, because it's a good analogy for why this article doesn't need disambiguation. Disambiguation solves the issue of "two articles want the same title", like how redirects solve the issue of "two titles want the same article". As I see it, this article wouldn't belong at the title New World Order, even if there were no other article vying for that title. That means its current title is just as incorrect as "Red (scare)" would be. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * TL;DR: The subject of this article isn't an order, it's a theory. Head nouns don't belong in parentheses. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.