Talk:New World Order

Untitled

There was the belief that this process would begin in 2000, set in motion by the predicted Y2K computer crisis causing widespread social disorder.

This, like nearly all the other claims made in this article, need some sort historical context or attribution. I think this needs a lot more research (you know, there has been a lot of research done on conspiracy theories by thoroughly sane people). --LMS — Preceding undated comment added 21:33, 18 February 2002 (UTC)

---

Weren't there references to a New World Order among the Nazis as well? -- April — Preceding undated comment added 15:51, 25 February 2002 (UTC)

That was to a New Order, although some would fancy a similarity between the two. -- John Owens 21:08, 3 June 2003 (UTC)

---

How non-neutral is the second last paragraph in this thing? -- User:Kwekubo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.105.176.122 (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2003 (UTC)

New World Order (Band)

The disambig page references "New World Order (Band)", which is likely a misnomer for the popular band "New Order". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhenning (talk • contribs) 00:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

What is new world order?

I have been reading up on conspiracies and groups such as Illumimati and the freemasons, and everything seems to be connected to NWO. What is the intended outcome of this order and is it against the jews? if it is why then do the Rothschild family seem to be involved? so many questions!! would be very grateful if someone could give me some answers! thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.112.6 (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL... this is one of the problems with conspiracy theories. They don't always hang together when you really look at them. Essentially NWO is about fear... fear that some secret hidden group is out there... plotting to overturn the existing political, social, economic and/or religious order. Exactly who comprises that secret group, or what their agenda is, will vary depending on who the theorist is. There really is no common theme... beyond the basic concept of the existance of a hidden group manipulating governments and institutions. By the way... while the name "New World Order" is new, the underlying fear of hidden groups and conspiracy is not. The concept has long existed. The Ancient Romans saw the Christians as being behind all sorts of conspiracies, including setting the great fire that burned Rome during Nero's reign. Same fear... different "hidden manipulators".

My personal opinion is that Jimbo Wales is the hidden Grand Poohbah of the NWO ... and he created Wikipedia to secretly further his nefarious agenda (you will have to buy my book to find out what that secret agenda is... only $9.95 plus shipping and handling... order today). I mean think about it ... why do we have WP:NOR if not to limit the chances of anyone looking too deaply and exposing the truth! IT'S TRUE I TELL YOU, TRUE!!! Blueboar 14:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

New World Order

I find it odd the disambiguation page for 'New World Order' contains no mention of the true original meaning.-NeuroLogical (talk) 09:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Where's George H. W. Bush

I'm amazed that there's no mention of President George H. W. Bush (the first President Bush). He famously used that phrase after the fall of the Soviet Union, and I'd have assumed that if there's a rock band bearing that name, it's in the nature of a political cartoon referring to that. Isn't his use of the term on that occasion the main reason why it's widely known today? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes that was indeed the commonly understood meaning in which the term was used in politics - this is mentioned on the page New world order (politics) - Wikipedia. I've moved that page from the section Other to the top, as that was the original usage of the term - which was totally not in the context of any conspiracy theory... 2A02:1811:418:1400:6CFE:35AC:4FA3:7EB2 (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a DAB page

I had no idea this DAB page existed. So I created one. Now I wish to merge this into the DAB. --Ludvikus (talk) 06:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

There could be discussion about what name the dab page should be at, but there is no reason to create a second dab page. I have redirected New world order (disambiguation) to point to this dab page (New World Order), and removed the merge tag. PamD (talk) 07:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

IMO, this one should either be:

• No primary topic, dab stays at "New World Order", link to "New world order" goes back in the main list
• Primary topic, dab moves to "New World Order (disambiguation)", "New World Order" redirects to "New world order", "New world order" remains at primary topic lead in the dab.

-- JHunterJ (talk) 13:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm pleased to be in agreement with you. I created the "new" DAB page because I had no idea that one existed already. And that's precisely why we need what you now propose. I'm with you on that 100%. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

PS1: Why don't you make a formal proposal on the WP noticeboard for Move proposals? I forgot it's "name"? Can you remind me? --Ludvikus (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

PS2: Look where this takes us: new world order (as if no other usages, or articles, existed). --Ludvikus (talk) 13:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have proposed two different possible solutions. Which are you in agreement with? WP:RM has the instructions for requesting a move. It is acceptable for New world order and New World Order to lead to different articles, or for one to lead to an article and the other to lead to a dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

NB: See a side-loop of this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#New_world_order PamD (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in process (1 of 2)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:New world order which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RFC bot 16:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in process (related move to the above) (2 of 2)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus. @harej 03:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

---

New World Order → New world order — (see talk page) -- Ludvikus (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. It's too confusing, and extremely burdensome to expect one to be able know that [a difference based on Caps]:

1. "New World Order" is the pejorative conspiracy theory while
2. "New world order" - or "New world order (politics)" - is the legitimate notion in politics, or international relations.
3. "New world order" should be the name of the DAB page (which it's not at the moment). --Ludvikus (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

--Ludvikus (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There is certainly confusion: the move request as listed here is saying "take the disambiguation page which is currently called "New World Order" and call it "New World Order (conspiracy theory)" ". I don't think that is what you have in mind. There are plenty of examples in Wikipedia of pairs or groups of articles distinguished by differences in capitalisation. PamD (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent second observation (regarding what I had in mind). Thanks for correcting my "mind." I've just WP:Refracted the above. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Most of the disambiguated entries are "New World Order". After the move request at New world order is complete (assuming it passes), New world order will redirect to New World Order, eliminating the confusion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Perhaps there's still a misunderstanding. Correct me if I'm wrong, please. Are you saying that the DAB page should remain named "New World Order"? I'm inclined to believe that that's not what you wish, since it violates the Wikipedia rules regarding WP article page titles: only the first letter should be capitalized since it's not a proper name. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, that's what I'm saying. Yes, most of the entries in this dab are proper names, which is why they're capitalized, and why the dab page should remain capitalized. It can still disambiguate both "New World Order" and "New world order", however, and the lower-case title will redirect to this page so there will be no confusion. Perhaps it would be best to let the other move request complete so that it can serve as an illustration. Or see Once Upon a Time (disambiguation) (lowercase has a primary topic, Initial Caps has none and so is a dab page) or Line in the Sand (disambiguation) (no primary topic in any case, lowercase version redirects to Initial Caps version, as proposed for these pages). -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong support: The WP rule to be followed is this: WP article titles are to have only the first letter capitalized - unless the title is that of a proper name. You found examples which may not follow the rule. But in this case it's a WP DAB page. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• PS1: I've corrected one of your counterexamples like so: Once upon a time (disambiguation). --Ludvikus (talk) 03:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• PS2: I'm working to correct "Lines in the sand" and it's related articles to conform to the WP rule I've cited above. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hold on: see WP:DABNAME: where a dab page combines entries for various spellings/capitalisations, the name of the dab page should use "The spelling that reflects the majority of items on the page is preferred to less common alternatives." - so if most of the entries are for the capitalised form, then that is the correct form for the title of the dab page. PamD (talk) 07:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

And blanking an existing redirect, as you did at Line in the sand, is disruptive: please stop doing things like that. I have reverted. PamD (talk) 07:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

And I've reverted Ludvikus's move of the Once Upon a Time disambiguation page. Ludvikus, if you're given an example of how things are set up in Wikipedia as an illustration, please do not "correct" them as if they were uncontroversially wrong. If they were uncontroversially wrong, another editor would not have used them as an example. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

And to finish up, I've reverted the move of Line in the Sand to Line in the sand (disambiguation). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

My apology to you both. I assure you my Moves were made in Good faith in accordance with WP:Bold policy. However, your clear explanation of your concerns expressed so well above, I can assure you that such a mistake will not happen again by me (I'll probably make some other mistake in the future). However, their still remains the characterization of my having been "disruptive." I still find that characterization extremely "disruptive" to my ability to work at Wikipedia. I urge you to take that Characterization back and acknowledge that my action was in WP:Good faith. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The DAB page, presently New World Order (all initial caps), should be named either "New world order (disambiguation)" or "New World Order (disambiguation)", depending on the relevant policy. The political thoery page, New world order (first initial cap only), should then be named "New world order (politics)" to avoid confusion. Both New World Order and New world order should point to the DAB page, as should the rejected version of the DAB (ie with or without all initial caps) Jubilee♫clipman 15:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Question: So where to you stand "Support," or "Opposed," or "Undecided"? --Ludvikus (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment No, the base names should not point to pages ending in " (disambiguation)". Please see Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Naming the disambiguation page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages. If there is a primary topic, the primary topic article goes at the base name. If there is no primary topic, the disambiguation page goes at the base name. The base name should never be a redirect to the same name + " (disambiguation)". -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Move:

  New World Order to New world order;

  New world order to New world order (political concept);

  New World Order (conspiracy theory) to New World Order;

• I'm wary about different capitalisations going to different pages, but here I think it's justified: the conspiracy theory is nearly always referred to in capitals, and the use of the term in capitals nearly always refers to the conspiracy theory. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Since there are many uses that are proper nouns, it should stay capitalized. Generally if most of the dab items are proper nouns, the dab page is capitalized, and not if vice versa. The article that is all lower case, however, should be moved so that caps are not the distinguishing feature. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Seems better to leave it in place. There are too many different things refered to as New World Order or New world order that this should not be a disambiguation page, and most of them are titles, so should retain title case. It might be appropriate to move New world order to New world order (political concept), force move the links, and redirect New world order to this page, but that's another matter entirely. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Final summary of my current position (trying my best to be helpful):

1) I think the WP:Primary topic is New world order.

2) True, as one editor maintain, there are many things called New World Order.

3) There's also possible confusion, at least because when we "speak" Capital letters are not "heard." So NOTHING should follow from Capitalization practice as to how articles ought to be Titled.

4) Therefore, the best thing to do is to have the DAB page titled New world order (disambiguation).

Both New world order and New World Order should be #Redirected to it,

and the rest should naturally fall into place.

Now if you would be kind enough to conform my position to the above ellaboration, or explication, of my position, I would be most grateful.

You are, of course, not expected to agree with me, if you do not believe my position does not conform to Wiki rules.

"You'all" have a nice day. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The presence of this disambiguation page is a manifest to the hypocrisy currently present on wikipedia.

They all concern themselves with the same thing on a less controversial topic it would be concentrated into one article. Adding NPOV would be futile, but let this stand as a protest against these proceedings till it gets removed. 91.128.17.20 (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yours is a pov view. Any academic political scientist, for instance, would strongly disagree. Any conspiracy theorist would of course agree with you. Dougweller (talk) 06:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)