Talk:New World Order conspiracy theory/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Article needs a re-write

The more I look at this article, the more I am becoming convinced that it needs a complete re-write. As I commented above, the topic of this article is the NWO conspiracy theory. As such, we should be focused on explaining to our readers what adherents to that theory (or rather set of theories, since there are more than one) say, and what critics say in reply. Because the topic is complex, I agree that it is helpful to break the topic up into identifiable sub-sections... each devoted to a particular aspect of the theory, but the basic structure of each section should be 1) this is what the adherents of the theory say, followed by 2) that is what critics of the theory say.

Unfortunately, this isn't how things are currently structured. The article has essentially morphed into a series of mini-essays on the history and development of various aspects of Conspiracy Theory in general, instead of remaining focused on what one specific conspiracy theory (know as the "New World Order" theory) says. These mini-essays are well written and well sourced... that isn't the problem... the problem is that they try to cover too much.. they wander off into tangents things and lose their focus.

A lot of this material is good... and would do well if moved to other articles. Either the articles on the sub-topics (Freemasonry, Illuminati, etc.) or into the general overview Conspiracy theory article. But much of it does not belong in this article.

I propose a top to bottom re-write to re-focus. Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that the article needs a radical rewrite, although I do agree that certain sections need rewriting and improvement. The article is presently rated as a Good Article, and things that aren't broken needn't be fixed. I find it odd that you suggest the "this is what adherents say, that is what critics say" structure and assert that this isn't how the article is structured - one of the most common things we have heard from respondents on this talk page is that the article follows that pattern, and in some cases respondents have attacked that structure. The problem is exactly that the New World Order conspiracy theory is actually a superconspiracy theory, and perhaps easier understood as a theory set, because there are such wildly different views of what a NWO would be, whom would implement it, and what its goals and objectives would entail. This is why the article is so long and thorough - it needs to provide context each time the article shifts to a different viewpoint of the alleged NWO, be it Illuminati, Freemasonry, Shape-shifting reptilian humanoids, Gradualism, Mind Control, etc. It currently accomplishes providing such context in approximately 2 to 4 brief paragraphs per section. I think this is entirely acceptable. However, I did recently convey to Loremaster that some sections may benefit from improvements that make them more concise and exclude certain details if we can deem them unnecessary or immaterial. I don't think that constitutes a radical rewrite of the article, however. To simply skirt the borders of the drastically different versions of the New World Order conspiracy theory, and then lazily cast readers to other articles with a bunch of See also and Main templates, is to let readers walk away from this article without a comprehensive characterization of the wholesome New World Order conspiracy theory set. Frankly, I think most if not all of this content belongs in this article. Rewritings of sections should focus on concision, but not defer readers to venture into different directions to read this relevant and notable content elsewhere. John Shandy` • talk 16:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not it needs a rewrite, you shouldn't just reinsert text that 3 editors have agreed is inappropriate. I've removed it again, join in the discussion above. Dougweller (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, once content in the article was contested on this talk page, everyone should have waited till the dispute was resolved before making substantial changes to avoid an edit war. --Loremaster (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The revert was my mistake Dougweller, as I admittedly didn't count 3 editors. I apparently missed the additions to the talk page that took place overnight while I was sleeping. I only glanced at my watchlist to see the latest changes to the article and its talk page, and didn't see that editors (including Loremaster) had agreed on that edit as a compromise. I didn't even know that you had responded on the talk page. Sorry. That said, I agree with Loremaster that editors should have been less hasty in rendering substantial changes to a disputed section. John Shandy` • talk 17:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that I'm bit surprised and saddened by Blueboar's recent attitude towards the article, I obviously disagree that the article needs to be entirely re-written especially when 1) it is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral, and stable, 2) it has had consensus for months if not years, 3) it has achieved Good Article status, 4) its structure mirrors that of some of the works of journalists and scholars who have written on this subject and whom we use as our reliable sources, and 5) one of these reliable sources, Michael Barkun, a political scientist who specializes in conspiracy theories in general and New World Order conspiracy theories in particular, has reviewed and praised the article. That being said, it has always been my intention to make some substantial improvements so that the article meets Featured Article criteria but I will resist any radical change that makes this article less comprenhensive and informative. --Loremaster (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:OWN much? If the article is well written is a very subjective matter, but as it stands today it's meandering all over the place - it reads as an essay, not as a encyclopedic article. Perhaps the article can benefit from a top to bottom rewrite. Perhaps the result will be less good. Without an attempt, how can you be so sure you're right? WegianWarrior (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Please note... I have no desire to make the article "less informative and comprehensive"... I do have a desire to see it more focused (and that means a re-examination of what we are informative and comprehensive about). As the article stands now, it is indeed a very good overview of conspiracy theory in general... what I want to turn it into is an extremely good overview of the NWO conspiracy theories in specific. It may be that I have frightened some of you when I used the term "re-write"... so let me re-state my intent... I think we need to do a top to bottom review of the article (going slowly and deliberately), with an eye towards imparting a clearer and somewhat narrower focus to each section. That review (as with all reviews) will end up naturally evolving in a top to bottom re-write... but it will be a re-write that has consensus and will make this an even better article (possibly earning it featured status). Hope that eases any fears you may have... I have no intention of rushing in like a bull in a china shop. Blueboar (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't help but roll my eyes every time someone accuses Loremaster of article ownership. He's simply been the single most willing contributor to this article, often left outnumbered by cranks who would, in a heartbeat, turn this article into a soapbox for promoting their paranoid conspiracy theories as genuine facts. Notice Loremaster said "resist," not "revert." Loremaster has already sought what I'm counting to be 3 compromises to resolve content disputes on this talk page in essentially 1 week's time. Though dissenting, he has cooperated thoroughly and openly with other editors. While it is your opinion that it reads as an essay rather than an encyclopedic work, a Good Article review and a review by a third party expert on the subject, as well as historical consensus (albeit presently evolving and changing), and relatively recent positive feedback found in the talk page archives, suggest that this article is comprehensive, factually-accurate, and neutral. Both Loremaster and myself agree that there are sections that need what some might call "overhauls," but to essentially scrap the article and startover with a top-to-bottom rewrite strikes us as absurd. I think that some of you may not be recognizing or respecting the magnitude and diversity of New World Order conspiracy theories - the subject is nothing short of a monolith, which makes this a particularly difficult article to write such that it is comprehensive and informative without becoming bogged down with details. Despite Loremaster's changes over the years, many sections of the article are relics of the editors that heavily contributed to it before his arrival. Some of these things he and I have discussed changing, but either are busy (in his case) or have yet to read more of the sources for certain sub-sections (in my case). So, yes, the article needs improvements, with concision being an important objective. However, radically rewriting and (essentially reducing, as seems to be what you and Blueboar are suggesting) the article runs a risk of excluding important context that props up the neutrality of this article and forms the foundations on which notable scholars scrutinize the paranoid theories of conspiracists.

That said, taking into account Blueboar's latest comment (above mine), I feel easier about that and agree that a section-by-section review would be a good thing. But scrapping the article and rewriting from scratch struck me as a terrible idea at this stage of the article's development. In fact, a section-by-section review, conducted patiently and with respect for differing time zones, may very well help get the ball rolling on some changes that Loremaster or myself are interested in seeing or helping with. John Shandy` • talk 18:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll back you up about Loremaster, not many people are willing to work on this article and without Loremaster it would probably be a mess. And there is no need to start from scratch, section-by-section is certainly the way to go. Dougweller (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you John and Doug. Since we seem to all agree on how to proceed from here, the only thing I would suggest before new contribtors start hacking away at the article is that 1) they take the time to familiarize themselves with the subject of conspiracy theories in general and New World Order conspiracy theories in particular by reading the works of Michael Barkun and Chip Berlet (most of which is available online), and 2) they discuss substantial changes to the article on this talk page to reach consensus before making them. --Loremaster (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, I too would agree that Loremaster is not really engaging in WP:OWNership. At least, no more than is normal and acceptable in any established article. What has been occurring here over the last few days is the normal WP:BRD cycle... This is how Wikipedia works. Blueboar (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

agree with blueboar. There is much about this article that is unencyclopedic and it needs rewriting, whether top to bottom or section by section is immaterial, as long as it is rigourously scrutinised. The article relies too much on material from two self appointed 'experts', rather than on the wider material on the topic. It's not true to say that the article has been stable. It has only been kept so by an almost obsessive resistance to the slightest change, combined with a very hostile treatment of editors wishing to improve the article and a very strange approach to managing the talk page which suppresses any open discussion of the article, I'm glad to see that this is finally changing.Riversider (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Riversider, you have still neglected to cite or even point to the parts of the article that you take issue with, or note what's wrong with them. You do seem to take issue with two of the notable scholars whose reliable sources are used extensively throughout this article, but have neither done nor suggested anything in their place with any validity. It's your mere opinion that Barkun and Berlet are self-appointed experts, but they aren't the only critics who hold their views. Resistance to change is not a problem here, as you can see by the BRD taking place and the compromises recently reached on at least 3 significant content disputes. Resistance to editors' opinions, to bogus arguments, or to lack of reliable sources, have certainly been commonplace on this talk page, and for good reason. Suppression of discussion is nonsense. You're welcome to excavate any archived talk page discussion and cut and paste it here on the talk page and continue discussing it if you feel the need. The archives are readily available for anyone to view or further discuss. I don't know what hostility you're talking about, as there's nothing other than words being exchanged on this talk page - that editors are strong in their wording does not mean they're not being WP:CIVIL. You need to read the sources by the authors you're critical of, and find alternative reliable sources that significantly deviate from their views, before we can modify the article to conform to your mere opinion that their concerns are just reverse conspiracy theories, which you voiced in an earlier discussion. John Shandy` • talk 16:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply John. I've promised that I will raise the various concerns I have with the article over time, and I will share sources that support my arguments, as I already have with the BBC article that Loremaster found useful. I felt that article better reflected the kind of tone that an encyclopedic article should have. Tone is quite a subtle and nuanced concept, and I don't think I expressed myself clearly enough for other editors here to understand, but there is a clear difference in tone between the neutral, balanced and evidence based approach adopted by the BBC, and the hyperbolic arguments adopted by the two 'scholars' that this article relies on, and this affects the tone of the whole article, as well as some of it's particular assertions. You'll have to appreciate that some editors have more time on their hands than others, and that I'm only able to edit in short bursts as a consequence of my other commitments. I'll do my best to use that time as well as I can. Riversider (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds great then. I do agree that tone is important, especially given the controversial nature of the topic and the risk of readers digging their heels into paranoid views further when reading this article. Do keep in mind, as mentioned above, that many parts of this article are relics from past editors that essentially haven't contributed to the article in years, so they aren't necessarily going to be rigorously defended unless there happens to be a good reason. I understand what you mean about time constraints - that I was able to create an article and radically rewrite another last week was a miracle for my schedule, and has definitely left me exhausted for my 4-day weekend. I also believe some of the editors contributing to this talk page are in different time zones, so we might experience delayed talk page feedback from day to day. I am glad to see this article getting some attention, at any rate. John Shandy` • talk 17:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Riversider, if you are interested in editing this article, you need to be aware of a few things:

1. 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.
2. Although we have extensively relied on one scholar and one journalist as reliable sources for content in this article for the sake of convenience, their work reflect viewpoints shared by a strong majority of experts on this subject. So, although we should strive to add more reliable sources to avoid relying only on a few, don't be surprised if this doesn't change the tone of the article but rather reinforces it.
3. However well-toned you may think it might be, one short, anonymous (and arguably tongue-in-cheek) BBC article is a source that has far less weight that a well-referenced essay or book written by a notable mainstream scholar (like Barkun) or journalist (like Berlet) who is widely known for specializing in the study of conspiracy theories in general and New World Order conspiracy theories in particular. As long as statements of fact and statements of opinion are properly differentiated, it is not a violation of Wikipedia's policy on neutrality to report the opinion of a scholar or journalist who argues that, for example, many prominent conspiracy theorists may suffer from paranoid psychophrenia or the spread of conspiracy theories might lead to pogroms.
4. Before when can take seriously your criticism of sourced statements in the article or the scholars and journalists whose work we have used to support these statements, you need to show that you've actually read and understood their work. Unfortunately, by repeatedly avoiding to answer such questions, you have given the impression that you haven't read their work and therefore your criticism is based on nothing more than prejudice.

--Loremaster (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't refused to answer any questions, I've chosen to ignore them, because I think they are impertinent and do not assume good faith. Your treatment of other editors on this page is a significant reason why this article has not improved, with your attitude that your task here is to 'demolish' them, rather than work with them to improve the article. There are lots of matters for editorial judgement, one is the extent to which we should rely on one or two sources when there are many more out there. The BBC has a reputation for NPOV and good journalism and usually maintains high standards. They too use editorial judgement in their use of sources. Riversider (talk) 12:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Since you insist on repeatedly and grossly misinterpreting and mischaracterizing the claims of some of the notable mainstream scholars and journalists we have used as reliable sources for this article, it is not assuming bad faith to ask you whether you have read and understood these sources in order for all of us to get to the root of this misunderstanding. By the way, you need to be also aware of the fact that sometimes it is the summarizing and paraphrasing of a source that is unintentionally inaccurate or hyberbolic rather than the source itself. This is another reason why it would be useful for you to read the essays and books we are using as reliable sources.
2. Although I freely admit and apologize for often lacking tact, this shortcoming doen't change the fact that the vast majority of editors who have complained on this talk page were true believers in a New World Order conspiracy who want to turn this article into a vehicle to promote their paranoid conspiracy theories as undisptuble facts. So the reason why so few other editors have contributed to this article over the years is because they have never made edits to this article that complied with Wikipedia guidelines therefore they were immediately reverted while their suggestions on this talk page were rarely constructive but I actually have improved this article the few times some of them did offer some useful criticism.
3. The suggestion that the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article has not improved is absurd when 1) many people (including some critics) agree that it is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, and neutral; 2) it has achieved Good Article status; and 3) some experts on conspiracy theories in general and New World Order conspiracy theories in particular have praised the article during its evolution over the years.
4. When I used the word “demolished” in one of our previous debates, I simply meant that I successfully explained why your arguments (and those of others) were wrong, especially when they indicated an ignorance of Wikipedia guidelines. There is obviously a difference between “demolishing” bad arguments and “demolishing” people.
5. You seem to conveniently ignore the fact that, despite my alleged tyrannical attitude, our first dispute about the last sentence of the lead section concluded in a complete compromise on my part to your intransigeant demand to have part of that sentence deleted. So this ironically proves that we have been able to work together to improve this article despite the tension between us. ;)
6. I agree with you that we should use more sources. However, a majority of notable mainstream journalists and scholars share the views expressed by the two sources we have extensively used so far. Therefore, even if we had more sources, Wikipedia should accurately reflect the proportionality of viewspoints on this subject. In other words, just because one journalist decides to give equal time to a writer who sympathizes with creationists or climate-change deniers, it doesn't mean that we, contributors to an encyclopedic article, should do the same in an article about evolution or climate change.
7. No one is disputing that the BBC is a reliable source. However, not everything produced by the BBC is of equal value. Even you can agree that one short, anonymous, and arguably tongue-in-cheek BBC online article is a source that has far less weight than a lengthy, serious, and comprenhensive investigative report clearly attributed to one of the BBC's top investigate reporters. Therefore, this BBC online article is obiously a source that has far less weight than a well-referenced essay or book written by a notable mainstream scholar who is widely known for specializing in the study of conspiracy theories in general and New World Order conspiracy theories in particular. Furthermore, according to Wikipedia guidelines, “when available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources”. So a scholarly source has more value than a journalistic one.
8. One last thing you need to remember is that the Wikipedia article on New World Order conspiracy theory focuses on all conspiracy theories about a New World Order, the vast majority of which are paranoid fantasies of fundamentalist Christians who are convinced that agents of the Antichrist are behind it all. The BBC article, on the other hand, focuses on the most plausible conspiracy claims made againt the Bilderberg group, some of which is arguably true. This explains the difference in tone in these two articles and why they cannot be similar.

--Loremaster (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Raw Material

Need to cite raw material of the conspiracy theories and not just the debunkings.Lung salad (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

In general, the article currently explains what conspiracy theorists believe and then what skeptics think of it. This is what most journalists and scholars do when they write on the subject. Although we can use a select few quotes from first-party sources (i.e. the articles and books of prominent conspiracy theorists), it is better to report what third-party sources tell us about conspiracy theories. --Loremaster (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

If we use “raw material” from conspiracy theorists, it should be from conspiracy theorists who have been mentioned by journalists and scholars as notable conspiracy theorists. The reason being that Wikipedia should not be raising the profile of an obscure conspiracy theorist if scholarship and news organizations haven't already. --Loremaster (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists don't agree

Something that we should probably make clearer ... The NWO theory is not one single unified theory, but a collection of bits and pieces "borrowed" from other fringe theories... theories that don't necessarily relate to the NWO. Not all believers in the End Times (for example) believe in the NWO ... and not all NWO believers believe in the End Times. (to give another example: Not all NWO theorists believe in a Masonic conspiracy... and there are Masonic conspiracy theorists that are not tied to the NWO.) We have to be careful that the reader does not come away thinking that all End Times (or Masonic) theories are NWO theories, and vise versa.

One of the confusing things about dealing with "conspiracy theory" in general is how fragmented they are... and how frequently these fragmented theories seem to overlap and borrow ideas from each other, without actually agreeing on what it means. Conspiracy theorist A may make a claim about X... Conspiracy theorist B may make what appears to be a similar claim about X (sometimes even citing A for the claim)... and yet when put into context of the specific theory that A or B each proposes, the claims turn out to actually be very dissimilar. Blueboar (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem of dealing with conspiracy theories is that they are quite often not very consistent, but mere bits and pieces, somewhat intuitive. The academic scholar is used to consistency and argument, and looking for it may unify what isn't unified, look for consistency where there is none, or look for a point when none is to be had. My personal experience with conspiracy theorists is that quite often there is no theory at all, but a dispersed, contradicting body of knowledge even if talking to just one person. "Theories" or rather catchwords such as "NWO", "Illuminati" or "Freemasons" take a top level in CTs, functioning as flexible unifiers of the ununifiable for its proponents. They explain everything, everything comes down to them. Chemtrails, 911, JFK, the FED, etc. can be integrated into one narrative (however confusing and contradicting), even Freemasons, Illuminati and NWO are mutually integratable. But specifically because they function as integrators, they bear the CTs contradictions and, in the end, are almost empty vessels to be filled with anything.

So, while we may, with Barkun and others who attempted a typology of conspiracy theories, note that NWO is a "super-conspiracy" and possibly present some common features, any attempt at completeness with regard to the content must, IMO, ultimately fail. An article on NWO should probably reflect this dillema and note the terms elusiveness in regards to specific content. (This is obviously meant as editorial consideration, since I'm not certain about RS in this matter. It's just an attempt to work out the problems and dillemas of writing about CTs. I have the utmost of respect for Loremaster as a main author of this article as it stands, and this is in no way intended to denigrate his efforts.) SK (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that I don't share Blueboar's concern since the article, for example, specifically talks about end-time believers who have embraced NWO conspiracy theory rather than all end-time believers; in his book A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America, Michael Barkun (who is a leading expert on the subject), talks about the growing popularity of “superconspiracy theories”, which are conspiratorial constructs in which multiple conspiracies are believed to be linked together hierarchically. “Event conspiracies” and “systemic conspiracies” are joined in complex ways, so that conspiracies come to be nested together. At the summit of the conspiratorial hierarchy is a distant but all-powerful evil force manipulating lesser conspiratorial actors. The term “New World Order” is often used by many conspiracy theorists to described the ultimate superconspiracy. Superconspiracy theories have enjoyed particular growth since the 1980s, in the work of authors such as David Icke, and Milton William Cooper. I therefore suggest that Blueboar reads Barkun's book before proposing changes based on personal opinions rather than scholarly research. I will resist any attempt to make “clarifications” in the article that are based on nothing more than original research. In other words, if a reliable source says “conspiracy theorists believe XYZ”, we have no choice but to report this statement without our “clarification”. --Loremaster (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

recommendation

In the "Postualted implementations" section, I wish to suggest 2 additions.

1) in the Gradualism sub-section, a mention of the democratic socialist society named the Fabian society "whose purpose is to advance the principles of democratic socialism via gradualist and reformist, rather than revolutionary, means." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society Ive been involved with reading and researching the NWO, and I have heard the name "Fabian Society" on occasion.

2) a new sub-section titled "Hegelian Dialectic" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegelian_dialectic#Hegelian_dialectic, known by its common phrases "Problem, reaction, solution", or "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesis,_antithesis,_synthesis Alex Jones, Max Igan and others have used this quite often, and it should be addressed that their opinions/hypothesis/etc mentions something to the effect that the ones in power create a problem, the public reacts, and then the ones in power [whom created the problem to begin with], solve it [often detrimental to society as a whole]. More will probably need to be added, but this is a good start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 04:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

We don't take original research, because it goes against the verifiability policies and it opens the door to unobjective, opinionated, and unbalanced material which goes against the neutral point of view policies. Please cite reliable sources (such as books, scholarly journals, news articles, etc) for each point, without providing any elaboration or explanation of your own. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

As the title states, its a recommendation, not a command to do so. I dont plan to do lengthy research in order to cite sources, hence the reason of the original message. Feel free to do the reseach, and add it to the article. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 07:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Frankly these suggestions sound appealing to me at face value, but unfortunately we can only make them if we find reliable sources that substantiate them (e.g. sources that make these same claims themselves). Perhaps search mainstream news sites, scholarly journals, or maybe books that make these particular connections. Let us know how we can help. John Shandy` • talk 05:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Alleged conspirators and criticisms- parts should be merged

I can't help but notice that the beginning of alleged conspirators presents a view of Domhoff's where he describes CT's beliefs that he almost holds himself- the whole first passage, if you removed conspiratorial, echoes this from the article on who rules america- Domhoff argues in the book that a power elite wields power in America through its support of think-tanks, foundations, commissions, and academic departments. Additionally, he argues that the elite control institutions through overt authority, not covert influence. In fact it can be argued Domhoff's prominence is through his assertions America is ruled by a small elite class. It's not until the next section on criticisms do we see a passage where a clarification is provided by him. This makes reading the article difficult and confusing, Domhoff is portrayed as calling people conspiracy theorists for thinking the world is ruled by a conspiratorial elite, however he always promotes an elite rules, and promotes they suppoort and control all these entities that wield power.

I think the assertion and clarification need to be connected somehow. Or insert an eloquently phrased "everything you suspect is going on really is, which we're free to discuss until someone uses the word conspiracy." Don't blame me for saying that, I just returned from reviewing some of Domhoff's material. He's amazingly contradictive but of course an enjoyable and accessible source of knowledge.Batvette (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between sociologists pointing out that our society (like almost all human societies) is ruled by self-interested elites of a ruling class and conspiracy theorists engaging in wild speculation without any hard proof that our society is ruled by conspiratorial elites committing treason. That being said, putting aside the fact that your comment is far more convoluted than the parts of the article you are critical of, I disagree and oppose your suggested merge based on your inability to understand content from a source. --Loremaster (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

End time criticism

Some of the most vocal critics of end-time conspiracy theories come from within Christianity. In 1993, American historian Bruce Barron wrote a stern rebuke of apocalyptic Christian conspiracism in the Christian Research Journal, when reviewing Robertson's 1991 book The New World Order. Another critique can be found in historian Gregory S. Camp's 1997 book Selling Fear: Conspiracy Theories and End-Times Paranoia. Religious studies scholar Richard T. Hughes argues that "New World Order" rhetoric libels the Christian faith since the "New World Order", as defined by Christian conspiracy theorists, has no basis in the Bible whatsoever and that, in fact, this idea is not only unbiblical; it is anti-biblical and fundamentally anti-Christian because, by misinterpreting key passages in the Book of Revelations, it turns a comforting message about the coming kingdom of God into one of fear, panic and despair in the face of an allegedly approaching one-world government.Progressive Christians, such as preacher-theologian Peter J. Gomes, caution conservative Christians that a "spirit of fear" can distort scripture and history by dangerously combining biblical literalism, apocalyptic timetables, demonization, and oppressive prejudices; while Camp warns of the "very real danger that Christians could pick up some extra spiritual baggage" by credulously embracing conspiracy theories. They therefore call on Christians who indulge in conspiracism to repent.

I dont see the need to add so much criticism to the end time section. You could just as easily add conservative, fundamental Christians who believe in the end time conspiracy (LaHaye, Hitchcock etc). A short summary would work better just like in the other sections. Portillo (talk) 06:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I obviously disagree with you. Since many scholars argue that Christian apocalypticism is the most important source of, and influence on, New World Order conspiracism, a section on the subject deserves to be more lenghtly than others. Furthermore, the only reason why some criticism paragraphs in other sections are short is either because I've never gotten around expanding them or because critics don't have much to say on the subject. That being said, although I am not opposed to adding more content about influential Christian conspiracy theorists, I think the current criticism paragraph in the End Time section is both concise and comprehensive now that I've improved it in reaction to your reverted 20 July 2011 edit. --Loremaster (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and I do hope it is made more clear that many Christians do believe in the end time prophecy, such as Tim LaHaye, Mark Hitchcock and Hal Lindsey. In fact, Id argue that the end time prophecy is a standard Christian belief rather than a fringe theory. Portillo (talk) 03:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that there is a difference between “end time prophecy” and Christian apocalyptic millennerian conspiracism, I don't understand why you think it is necessary to make more clear that many Christians believe in “end time prophecy”. --Loremaster (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I just think its a bit silly to say that Christians who believe in the end time conspiracy are unbiblical and should repent. Many Christians believe in the antichrist, world goverment, etc. Portillo (talk) 09:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh! I understand your confusion now. What you failed to grasp is that there is a difference between Christian eschatology (vague beliefs about the return of Jesus, the resurrection of the dead, the rapture, the rise of an antichrist, the tribulation, the millennium, the end of the world, the last judgment, and the new heaven and earth) and the paranoid conspiracy theories (such as the idea that Freemasons, the Illuminati and/or Jews are part of a secret conspiracy to take over the world OR that Obama is the Antichrist) that some Christians attach to eschatological beliefs. The critics mentioned in the article argue that Christians can continue believing that the end time will come one day without embracing the conspiracy theories of the lunatic fringe. Furthermore, just because every Christian in the world believes XYZ, it doesn't mean that their beliefs reflect a proper interpretation of the Bible. In my humble opinion, the full preterist interpretation of the Book of Revelations is probably the correct one but I suggest you read Richard T. Hughes' essay Revelation, Revolutions, and the Tyrannical New World Order for a different and more scholarly opinion. Lastly, 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. --Loremaster (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Im of the belief that the events of the Book of Revelations are going to happen in the future and have not yet occurred. Thanks for your reply. Portillo (talk) 03:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You're welcomed. --Loremaster (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, do you believe that the NwO conspiracy is real or fake? Portillo (talk) 03:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the “New World Order conspiracy”, as described by prominent conspiracy theorists ranging from Alex Jones to David Icke, is a paranoid fantasy. However, I fully accept the idea that the globalization of neoliberal capitalism, with the transnational capitalist class that has emerged from it, is responsible for the perfect storm of converging crises that are threatening the peace and properity of all nations but also the future of human civilization... That being said, since you are a Christian, I strongly suggest you read Gregory S. Camp's 1997 book [http://www.amazon.com/Selling-Fear-Conspiracy-Theories-End-Times/dp/0801057213 Selling Fear: Conspiracy Theories and End-Times Paranoia] to learn a different Christian perspective on the subjet of New World Order conspiracy theories. --Loremaster (talk) 04:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

A new Organization " Center for Religious Peace and New World Order"

In 2010 a new organization "Center for Religious Peace and New World Order " was organized by Emmanuel Adetula who is counted among the most hated religious and social commentator among African American in U.S history, a self define Preacher and Social Entrepreneur, He studies Negotiation and Conflict Management at United States Institute of Peace. Born in Nigeria, West of Africa, resident in United States , The Center for Religious Peace and New World Order mission is to Seek and Pursue good governments, religious peace, liberty , freedom, social justice, human rights and democracy around the world by using research, dialogue, conferences, workshops, and media projects; such as documentary films, TV , Radio , Social and print media to achieve its mission towards one world Government . The organization promotion of the rule of law, transitional justice and democracy featured Interviews and dialogues with Political and Religious Leaders , the result of these dialogues contributed immensely to documentary films on the organization websites. The Center for Religious Peace is a Division of Christ Channel Network a bona-fide 501 (c) (3) non profit organization in United States founded in 2002 . www.christchannelnetwork.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccnhouse (talk • contribs) 05:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Until a reliable source (such a notable mainstream journalist or scholar) mentions that conspiracy theorists believe Emmanuel Adetula's "Center for Religious Peace and New World Order" is part of a conspiracy to impose a world government, we can not and should not mention this organization in the article. --Loremaster (talk) 05:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

climate change one world government conspiracy

surprised this hasn't crept into the article yet.Batvette (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Never heard of it. Can you point us to a reliable source that discusses it in a serious manner? (ie not just some obscure website that makes the claim). Blueboar (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Batvette is correct that many New World Order conspiracy theorists are paranoid cranks who believe that climate change is a hoax that serves the agenda of creating a world government. Lord Monckton is probably the most famous one. Read Climate change denier Lord Monckton meets Glenn Beck. That being said, we do briefly mention climate change in the Population control section of the article. --Loremaster (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

That sounds right. What I was trying to say is that we have to give the various NWO claims Due Weight within the context of the broader topic. If a claim is repeated by only one or two conspiracy websites, we should not give that claim too much weight (even to the point of not mentioning it at all)... However, if thousands of NWO websites all claim it, we should give it more weight (and at least mention it). And, if the mainstream has commented on the claim, then we should give it a fair amount of weight (and give it at least a short paragraph). Since I had never heard the claim about climate change before, I wanted to know what kinds of sources existed... so I could get an idea of where on the weight scale it should fall. Blueboar (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you would find the claim made very prolifically, not on NWO conspiracists sites, but on the sites and media sources of right wing and libertarian climate changs skeptics- as well as those who are convinced climate change is happening but believe those engaged in alarmism have underlying agendas. Some of those agendas are obviously true, and it could be easily argued that global socialism is being advanced by policies of the IPCC as well as carbon trading schemes.

Anyone who believes climate change policy will lead directly to a one world global governance is of course, a paranoid crank.

Anyone asserting it is not just one more incremental step toward this, and an way for "TPTB" to further their grip on power and greed, whether the extreme situation of that goal is realized or not, is equally delusional and should be treated with similar contemptuous ridicule. To make my personal position clear I think it's almost certain the globe is warming, man's role is part though may not be the largest influence. It IS clear that many different participants are using the issue for their own selfish agendas, and I'm quite sure that reducing global GGE is not possible with any of the proposals enacted or on the table, since global socialism IS on the minds of most of the people involved- unintentionally in many cases. I do not think one world government is plausible in any case.Batvette (talk) 11:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

1. One has to be really careful not to confuse “globalism” with “socialism”. Just because some proposed or existing law, treaty or organization is global in nature it doesn't automatically mean that it is socialist in nature. There are currently numerous laws, treaties and organizations to manage global capitalism. That being said, to get a clue of what “ecosocialism” is I suggest you read Joel Kovel's essay Why Ecosocialism Today? and then the Wikipedia article on ecosocialism.
2. The notion that “global socialism” is being advanced by the moderate policies of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is ludicrous when we know, among things, that the Bush administration, oil producers like Saudi Arabia, and oil corporations like Exxon-Mobil have conspired to replace the leadership of the IPCC with people more sympathetic to the needs of industry.[1]
3. Carbon emission trading schemes are an “ecocapitalist” solution to problems related to climate change that are denounced by ecosocialists who argue that: “Effective action on climate change involves demanding, adopting and supporting policies that reduce emissions at the source as opposed to offsetting or trading. Carbon trading isn't an effective response; emissions have to be reduced across the board without elaborate get-out clauses for the biggest polluters. There is an urgent need for stricter regulation, oversight, and penalties for polluters on community, local, national and international levels, as well as support for communities adversely impacted by climate change. But currently such policies are nigh-on invisible, as they contradict the sacred cows of economic growth and the free market.”
4. Unless one is a scientist who has actually studied climate change, one's personal opinion on humanity's role in global warming is worthless and the fact that the majority of scientists who mininize or completely dismiss the role of humanity in climate change are funded by oil companies should make one skeptical of “climate change skepticism”. That being said, I suggest you read Bill McKibben's article How the Mountain of Climate Change Evidence Is Being Used to Undermine the Cause.
5. The common good is what inspires socialism while greed, power-lust and selfish agendas are what fuel capitalism. In other words, the few true socialists that exist (such as Bernie Sanders) are the heroes of this story while capitalists (Exxon Oil, Haliburton, etc) are the villains.

--Loremaster (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Global socialism is what it is, it certainly is not the same as globalism, it is socialism realized on a global scale and seeks wealth redistribution from industrialized to third world nations. I would imagine ecosocialism may be a desirable term for the confused individuals who see nothing wrong with campaigning to reduce global warming at the same time they want to lend a hand up to impoverished peoples of Africa and Asia, but this kind of stupidity only renders their "the planet is doomed" message to be a self fulfilling prophecy of doom. What is AGW caused by? Human industrial activity. Simple and undisputable. How do you raise standards of living for the third world? Give them clean running water, hospitals, paved roads, electricity? You INDUSTRIALIZE them. Simple and undisputable. Say what you like, but the IPCC and related UN programs do seek to raise standards of living for the third world. Would you argue they aren't? And don't carbon trading schemes like Kyoto only cause capital and corporations to flow to third world countries, which only further industrializes them? How long will the charade go on concerning total global greenhouse gas emissions? Where the United States who was not signatory to Kyoto, has seen our output roughly level off, China and India's are soaring and will continue. There is your proof, if you can find it- total GGE worldwide since Kyoto's implementation. All this because your "ecosocialists" have two wildly conflicting agendas- global socialism and environmentalism as religion- the latter means they are thinking with their hearts, not their heads. Why is the third world poor? Partly backwards culture, partly past imperialism by outsiders, but mostly their own corrupt leadership. They come to the table of the UN/IPCC to grab what they can, and as their nations industrialize, they don't care about the planet. I'm afraid this whole scheme will only leave results much worse- and no oil company is paying me to say this. Should I wonder if some organization has, like in James Hanson's case, awarded you with over a million dollars to speak on it? Of course not, that would be silly. There are a lot of villains on both sides, and a lot of people with good intentions who want the facts. This kind of "environmentalism as religion" can result in huge catastrophes- take the "shipbreaking" debacle happening this last decade, you know who caused that? European environmentalists, who demanded a quick ban of single hulled tankers in their ports. Some 2500 ships were rendered obsolete practically overnight. They didn't think it through. Funny you mention studying climate change, you know that's an interesting field. One which did not even really exist until a few decades ago, and perhaps the only field of research where if enough scientists got together and came to a dissenting concensus from the status quo...they'd virtually all be cleaning out their desks in short order and looking for new careers. Think about that- "climate change..... it's not happening! whoopee, we can all go home now, the world's just fine!" No I'm not saying a conspiracy would be going on, but it's silly not to recognize they have no motivation to do anything not in their own interests. Batvette (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC) |}

Are their sources that say all that... or are you simply expressing your personal opinion on the issue? Blueboar (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Batvette has sources or is simply expressing his personal opinion, there are so many non-sensical claims in that rant that I don't have the energy or time to refute it all. Even if I did, this talk page is only for discussing improvements to the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article and nothing in his rant is remotely about that. --Loremaster (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I think a cap might be appropriate. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Feel free to add it now. --Loremaster (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't appreciate you capping my comment stating it isn't about improving the article while leaving your own which had nothing to do with improving the article and everything to do with expressing your own opinions on the topic intact. I'm not surprised, there are many glaring issues in this matter some people refuse to discuss. I'm curious why it is Loremaster feels he should refute things people say, or why sources are demanded on talk pages when I had not proposed a factual insertion into the article body. (I can provide sources for many claims within that comment, simply asking me to provide them in the midst of discussion seems obstructive and perhaps if knowledge on this aspect of the matter is lacking it's not my duty to provide ongoing educational data- and I'm not trying to be a deek, to blueboar at least) I didn't see a source for that claim about socialists being heroes or capitalists being villians, has the game here changed and maybe before I replied I should have wikilawyered on policy to suppress his input? He stated his opinions on the matter and I replied with mine. I will note the disingenuous nature of his socialist bias is so flippant he feels referencing a memo between Exxon and the White House is sufficient to pretend the issue is not being used by third world countries to take what they can get from the UN, while outright confirming the point in the same post as he adds about "support for communities adversely affected by climate change". If a refutation was forthcoming I'm glad he spared me the blatant insult if it was as feeble as that. It's as insulting as watching people pointing fingers at everyone they are trying to gain political capital on and calling them villains while they are noble and righteous trying to save the planet but refuse to discuss why they are not concerned that their implementation of GGE legislation seems to have resulted in a soaring of global GGE. Batvette (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It was Ian.thomson who capped your comment not me. Regardless, as I said before, this talk page is only for discussing improvements to the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article and not our opinions about global warming or global socialism so I should never have started debating you on that subject. As far as I'm concerned, this entire section should be capped since, as I pointed out at the very beginning, global warming is mentioned in this article in connection with New World Order conspiracy theory. Dispute resolved. Moving on. --Loremaster (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact that a very active current editor of this article's first response to the concern was "never heard of it" suggest to all but the disingenuous that I was correct. I had hoped merely mentioning it and stepping away would lead to your increased interest on this aspect and expansion of it. As AGW is one of the most pressing matters facing mankind, at least according to those most voiciferously demanding action on it, I think mere passing mention of it, considering CT on it is from the same political side as most of the NWO CT's, is a bit underwhelming. As you like, it's your article. As for debating the subject, perhaps you might refrain from such characterizations of people merely questioning an issue as "paranoid cranks" which really denotes the person using it as more of an extremist than those they would describe with that. I don't think Climate Change is a hoax, I would agree thinking so makes one a paranoid crank. So with what appropriately contemptuous and disrespectful label would we assign to all those people who deny all the clear evidence that multiple ulterior agendas are being forwarded, surely individually with no conspiracy necessary, in its name? Would we just call them dimwits if they thought Bush pushed a guy into a leadership position because he wanted to ensure capitalism endured- and not that Bush and oil companies can profit greatly going into third world countries as wealth redistribution occurs? Or would this person assume others are dimwits and accept it? If you're purposely obfuscating here you need to tinker with your tactics. When you insult someone's intelligence like that it's a challenge and most folks don't just walk away. Batvette (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

My resolution is to never again engage you in tangential debates and limit myself to replying to your comments related to improving the article. Putting aside the fact that many editors haven't read the article in its entirety or, if they have done so, sometimes forget some claims reported in it; we can only expand on some aspect of New World Order conspiracy if notable journalists and scholars have done the same in their work. For now, most of them focus far more on how New World Order conspiracy theory has been embraced and is being promoted by ufologists and New Age occultists then climate change deniers. However, if you can find reliable sources that focus on the fact that New World Order conspiracy theory has been embraced and is being promoted by climate change deniers, I would be more than happy to add content based on their work in the article. Until then, goodbye. --Loremaster (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Well since you're establishing that as the standard it makes it all the more curious that apparantly the conspiracy theorist claim you've made concerning climate change does not appear in the reference you've provided. I searched that book on it's google books preview page and it doesn't seem to have the term climate change in it anywhere. Giving you the benefit of doubt I searched for its old name global warming and came up with nothing as well. Testing to ensure I wasn't too stupid to figure out how to search a book's content I tried new world order and got 72 hits. Okay I'm not stupid. Many prospective editors have pointed out the proliferation of claims by CT's in the article as unsupported by any references, now it seems some that have references are suspect as well. Perhaps I am in error, it is beyond my comprehension that an editor with your experience would engage in original research or just make things up as he goes along. Maybe it was Berlet that said it? He does sound like a reasonable fellow, from his page here:

"After visiting a meeting of the Idaho Liberty Agenda, Berlet wrote: "It helps to recognize that much of what steams the tea bag contingent is legitimate."

"They see their jobs vanish in front of their eyes as Wall Street gets trillions. They see their wages stagnate. They worry that their children will be even less well off than they are. They sense that Washington doesn't really care about them. On top of that, many are distraught about seeing their sons and daughters coming home in wheelchairs or body bags."

He might just take a look at the fact GGE emissions have soared in spite of, or even because of, measures claimed to reduce them, and admitted "by golly maybe they are saying one thing and doing another. Why would this be?"Batvette (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW,a side note, that link to the guardianUK article on Lord Monckton... I'll echo the comments, "did you see the same episode (same article's comments) I did?" A near unanimous jeering. I'm starting to think you must think people would insult you by not reading the "education" you provide with links. Batvette (talk) 12:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

1. Google Books only previews some pages of a book but rarely a book in its entirety. Therefore, most people know that it is an unreliable means of determining whether or not a word is mentioned in a book.
2. I forget whether or not Barkun explicitly mentions “global warming” and/or “climate change” in his book since I read it a long time ago and I no longer have a copy with me. However, whether or not he does, his book was only being referenced for the general claim that conspiracy theorists believe that the New World Order will also be implemented through the use of human population control. The paragraph was simply expanded with details that Barkun may or may not mention when someone pointed out that this paragraph should discuss climate change a few months ago. However, adding a source for that specific claim would be a good thing.
3. The “prospective editors” who argued that some claims in the article are unsupported by any references were shown to be wrong or simply never made specific arguments that could be acted on. That being said, over the years, several paragraphs were rephrased or expanded with material that may not be found in the old references. However, this material is not original research. It comes from various reliable sources we have simply failed to get around properly referencing.
4. Chip Berlet is a strong critic of the Tea Party movement who simply argues that the anger over the bailout of big banks and insurance companies that led to the emergence of this movement is legitimate but the tragedy is that they aim their anger at the wrong target (“Big Government” rather than the big banks and insurance companies themselves) and their proposed solutions (more deregulation of business, austerity plans, etc.) would make things worse. The fact that some of the right-wing billionaires, who corrupted Washington, are bankrolling this movement tells you everything you need to know. That being said, please stick to debating improvements to the NWO conspiracy theory article. Unless there is a link, we should NOT be debating what Chip Berlet thinks about the Tea Party movement or climate change.
5. Linking the acknowledgment that the Tea Party movement has legitimate grievances with the notion that we should open to the possibility that climate change scientists are wrong has to be one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever heard!
6. I only posted a link to the Guardian article to support the claim that 1) there are conspiracy theorists who believe that climate change is a hoax that serves the agenda of creating a world government and 2) Lord Monckton is the most famous among them. Whether or not the article accurately portrays how Monckton was treated by Glenn Beck is completely irrelevant.

--Loremaster (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder if these more over the top replies are formed merely to instigate more animosity. Which argument within points 1-3 are we resting on? That the words are really in the book and the google search doesn't look at the whole book? That you aren't sure whether it's in there or not? That you provide references to "general claims" that aren't supported by them, which really does amount to original research? Was I wrong for finding this statement unsourced as you say others were? I do believe that enough editing has gone on you weren't pulling things out of your tookas on purpose and just forgot where it came from. The funny thing is it doesn't matter. You shouldn't have to provide a reference for that claim because it's the truth and we can find it at dozens of right wing climate change denier/skeptic sites, and there is due cause for rational suspicion on their part, if not paranoia turning that into nonsense about a conspiracy going on when it's just the same diverse villains (and in this case, some well intentioned but misguided ideologues) up to their same old games. If you were more willing to work with people and not always jump to defend the status quo of the article that would have been the lower standard you'd have set for others, not that we have to have a limited number of scholars recognizing it. Yes Berlet's views on the Tea Party are irrelevant to the article but in that article Berlet continues with a statement of ironic relevance to this article and its tone which I and others have long criticized (yet you seem to have either improved or obfuscated?) Berlet also believes that dismissing the tea partiers aids various factions, including John Birch conservatives, "Ron Paul libertarians," the Christian Right, and white supremacist groups, that have been documented trying to recruit the people who are newly moved by right wing populism. By dismissing and insulting the mere curious and implying their concerns are meritless or that of a crank, you risk further polarizing them- when you had the opportunity to instead educate them. Politics is not about chasing away the opposition or ridiculing them, it's about convincing them your side is the one to be on. I trust the article and its mention of climate change will be all that much better the next time I read it, you've yet to fail on that progress. Batvette (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that Wikipedia doesn't consider “dozens of right wing climate change denier/skeptic sites” reliable sources and demands that we find notable maintream journalists and scholars who report that climate change deniers have embraced New World Order conspiracism before being able to mention it in this article, I'm not gonna waste my time responding to the rest of your rant. Either make concrete propositions (involving content based on reliable sources) to improve this article or get lost because we don't need nor want your “seal of approval”. --Loremaster (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"responding to the rest of my rant" is neither your duty nor do I care to know how you feel about what I say. Improving the article can start with you removing all your POV ridden original research that this hack piece is full of, clear example being the above pointed out reference was found to have a whole passage pulled from thin air. It is simply amazing you have gotten away with such a hostile attitude toward so many editors for so long, demanding standards you yourself trample all over. This is not the end of this I assure you. --Batvette (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The passage was not pulled from thin air. It was based on a suggestion made by a reader on this talk page 6 months ago (see the “Quotes by notable people” discussion in the archives) and my reading of articles about Lord Monckton at the time, which I failed to reference.

Regarding the article as a whole: Putting aside the fact that editors have some leeway to use words that are not used by a source when paraphrasing/summarizing its content; as I said before, over the years, a few paragraphs were rephrased or expanded with material that may not be found in the current references. However, this material is not original research. It comes from various reliable sources whose references were mislocated/deleted in the process or that we have simply failed to get around properly referencing. You may simply be kicking in me in the butt to do the tidying-up I've been wanting to for a long time.

That being said, why would you want to remove a mention of climate change in the article when you are fighting to have the subject mentioned in the article? You're not making any sense. --Loremaster (talk) 22:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You're side stepping the point, which is that you continuously obstruct any editor's suggestions on changes with the stone faced reply Wikipedia doesn't consider “dozens of right wing climate change denier/skeptic sites” reliable sources and demands that we find notable maintream journalists and scholars who report that climate change deniers have embraced New World Order conspiracism before being able to mention it in this article yet it seems the article has many passages with your hand on them which don't begin to meet the same criteria. Worse, you've taken bits and pieces from various authoritative sources but peppered it with enough OR that the sum of the article has become your POV pet and really does not reflect reality OR the overall analysis found by the very sources it cites. This was a problem with the section I created about merging sections, you've taken it so far you can't cite Domhoff without breaking his views into fractured pieces so people can't keep track of what he really said. Batvette (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I have and will continue to obstruct “suggestions on changes” made by people that any rational observer would agree was nothing more than clumsy attempts to uncritically present a pet conspiracy theory as an undisptuable fact (when it isn't) without a source or with an unreliable source to back it up. That being said, over the years, I have improved the article based on both reasonable and unreasonable “suggestions on changes” made by you and other people. So this accusation that my obstructionism has prevented the article from being improved or expanded is ridiculous when, for example, you know that the entire paragraph about Georgia Guidestones in the article is there because of one of your silly rants many months ago.

Regardless, the only reason why there still are some passages in the article that I or other people have written/edited that do not meet the criteria I've imposed on others is because they contain fairly common and mundane claims that have been expressed by many notable mainstream critics of conspiracy theories in particular and New World Order conspiracism in particular. In other words, although all claims should be properly referenced, it is far more important and urgent to reference a bold claim that will be subject to immediate dispute (such as “the Bilderberg Group is part of a communist conspiracy to take over the world”) than a mundane claim that most people accept as obvious (such as “Christian conspiracy theorists are influenced by biblical prophecies about the end time).

If you have actually taken the time to read all sources this article is based on (rather than only relying on the search engine of Google Books...), I welcome you pointing out examples where there is an inappropriate difference between claims in the article and content in the sources. In my experience, it usually leads to an article I am interested in being improved with more newer and better sources that reinforce the disputed POV even more. ;)

Putting aside the fact that it doesn't violate any Wikipedia guideline, there is abolutely nothing wrong in quoting relevant passages from Domhoff's essay in different sections of the article. It does not in any way prevent someone from understanding his argument nor does it distort his position. You will really have to do better than that.

Ultimately, the reason why I am hard on you is because, even when you are right, your arguments are so convoluted that they cannot and/or should not be acted upon. --Loremaster (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Batvette, I would appreciate it if you would please take an hour or so to itemize all of the specific excerpts or passages which you feel Loremaster's editing has carried synthesis, original research, or his point of view into the article. It is very difficult for myself and perhaps some of this article's other editors to make heads or tails of what you're talking about. I cannot discern what specifically you take issue with in regards to your allegations of Loremaster's editing behavior. I think the simplest route to the bottom of this dispute is to simply list the specifics so that parties other than you or Loremaster can understand what the problems are and take our own crack at evaluating the disputed content. John Shandy` • talk 22:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Freemasonry

Freemasonry and Politics

In some countries, like in France (where the list of 19th century members of Chamber of Deputies who were also members of the Grand Orient remains secret to this very day, and where disclosure is resisted despite several attempts to have it exposed), Freemasonry was all about politics - generalisation about Freemasonry is impossible. A summary of this extremely wide and diverse subject matter cannot be condensed into a couple of paragraphs. There is no "broad outlook" of Freemasonry, if Freemasonry happens to be different things in different countries. Which it is. Lung salad (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

[2]Lung salad (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The website globalsecurity.org needs to be dealt with case by case, and this is an unsigned, unreferenced article which doesn't meet our criteria for reliable sources so far as I can see. Dougweller (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Remember that reliability often depends on context. I would agree that the website in question is not reliable for a blunt statement of fact about Freemasons (stating that "X is true about Freemasonry"), but it might well be reliable for an attributed statement as to what someone believes about Freemasonry (saying: "Adherents/Critics of the NWO conspiracy theory claim/believe that X is true about Freemasonry"). Blueboar (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

But we still have to establish the notability of that person. A paranoid conspiracy theorist is only notable if scholarship and news organizations deem him notable. --Loremaster (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Mostly I agree... my exception is when something as a genre is notable... I think it acceptable for us to choose a few websites/authors as being representative of that notable genre, even if the individual behind it isn't notable on their own. Obviously the ideal would be to find a notable representative of the notable genre... but that is not always possible. Blueboar (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedia should not be raising the profile of an obscure representative of a notable genre if scholarship and news organizations haven't already. If we cannot find a notable representative, we simply don't mention one. --Loremaster (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Lung salad, whether or not you think generalization about Freemasonry (or any subject) is impossible, you need to understand and accept that we can and should report the generalizations about Freemasonry made by notable mainstream scholars and journalists... unless one can find a more reliable source that contradicts this generalization. Regarding the claims found in the Freemasonry section about Freemasonry not being political, you need to understand that we are reporting the standard rebuttal of Freemasons when they are accused of engaging in crypto-politics. The fact that you can find a multitude of Masonic Lodges in different countries and throughout history that were political doesn't change the standard rebuttal Freemasons choose to use. That being said, no one is arguing that politicians don't join Masonic Lodges, it is simply argued that there is no (or there isn't suppose to be) discussion of politics (or religion) in Masonic Lodges.

Regarding your source, I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's guidelines on how to identify reliable sources.

--Loremaster (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources on Grand Orient Freemasonry being involved with the Chamber of Deputies - there's tons of it. Admittedly it's all in French. And then there's the dissolution of Grand Orient Freemasonry by Petain, that resulted in Right-Wing Neo-Freemasonic groups calling themselves Grand Occident that were Monarchist in nature springing up and paved the way for the creation of Action Francaise and other right-wing fascist groups. This is all bonafide ordinary history, not "conspiracy theory". As for condemning websites, let's not condemn the factual historical content contained therein. Lung salad (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

*sigh* Freemasons asserting that a long-standing rule within regular Freemasonry is a prohibition on the discussion of politics and religion in a Masonic lodge and the participation of lodges or Masonic bodies in political pursuits is not incompatible with the fact that members of the Grand Orient Freemasonry being involved with the Chamber of Deputies in France or anywhere else. Furthermore, as I said before when we had this conversation many weeks/months ago, we are reporting an assertion made by Freemasons when they are accused of engaging in political conspiracies. Whether or not this assertion is true or contradicted by some facts specific to a country and time period is irrelevant. Ultimately, 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. --Loremaster (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Freemasonry is part of the curriculum in the History of the Third French Republic, and this connection is to do with ordinary everyday history and not with "conspiracy theory". No verifiability? This is a joke. I will collect verifiable sources. There are many of them. If reference is going to be made that Freemasonry denies political activity, reference is therefore going to be made that Freemasonry does engage in political activity despite its declaration. That's neutral point of view, anything else is POV and against Wikipedia guidelines Lung salad (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many times I'm gonna have to explain this, but the fact that you can find an example of Freemasonry being political in a specific country during a specific time period doesn't change the fact a prominent Masonic apologist has chosen to respond to accusations of Masonic political conspiracy by arguing that a long-standing rule within regular Freemasonry is a prohibition on the discussion of politics and religion in a Masonic lodge and the participation of lodges or Masonic bodies in political pursuits. Wikipedia's guidelines regarding neutral point of view is irrelevant since we have a duty to report what a source says regardless of whether or not it is true. That being said, to resolve this dispute, I edited the disputed sentence to say “regular Anglo-American Freemasonry”. --Loremaster (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I know what you want, you want to insert a sentence "Freemasonry has nothing to do with politics" without including the fact that Freemasonry 'was' involved in politics, no matter how scholarly the source may be. Leaving out that latter point woould be POV, and would be in violation of Wikipedia Neutral Point of View. And every time that you include that word "understand" in a message to me it will be deemed as harrasment - because it is quite evident that it is you that does not "understand". To clarify the matter, French Freemasonry did not have any statement in its constitutions about politics, but at the same time it played a vital role in the creation of the Third Republic. Got that? Lung salad (talk) 10:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't Grand Orient Freemasonry said to be controlled by Jewish interests? Wasn't the involvement by Grand Orient Freemasonry in French politics and anti-clerical legislation in particular a powerful ingredient in the development of Freemasonry being creator of a New World Order? And in the escalation of Anti-Semitism? Isn't there a considerable amount of literature about this New World Order Conspiracy Theory? Have you checked this out? Lung salad (talk) 11:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The sentence was edited to clarify that Masonic apologists are only talking about Anglo-American Freemasonry so there is no need to talk about French Freemasonry's role in the Third Republic. Although you should be mindful that the Freemasony section of the article focuses on New World Order conspiracies implicating American Freemasons, please provide us with a reliable source for the claim that French Freemasonry being controlled by Jewish interests and playing a role in anti-clerial legistlation was a factor in development of New World Order conspiracy theories implicating Freemasons. --Loremaster (talk) 12:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh I know about the clarification and the edit to suit your POV opinion. And Grand Orient Freemasonry is part of New World Order Conspiracy Theory because it was viewed as the World Jewish Threat by those Catholics who were on the receiving end of the anti-clerical laws that the Grand Orient supported, and keeps an eye on things today to have it maintained.Lung salad (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

For Italy, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alta_Vendita Lung salad (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Another reference, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Orient_Freemasonry_Unmasked_as_the_Secret_Power_Behind_Communism Lung salad (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know much about Freemasonry, the conspiracy theories that implicate it, or anything about its political involvement or its stance on political discourse within its activities. However, it seems to me Lung Salad, that you wish to counter the sources that claim Freemasonry denies political involvement, by offering a source that demonstrates political involvement. Even with that being reliably sourced, I still think that you need a reliable secondary source that pits those two ideas against one another (a source that evaluates Freemasonry's claims of no involvement against evidence of involvement). In other words, what you are suggesting may indeed be valid, I think it treads on the border of synthesis maybe? I'm not entirely sure. We're not supposed to write things in an evaluative or comparative way though unless a secondary source does so. I'm trying to understand if this is the crux of Loremaster's objection to your suggested edits. John Shandy` • talk 14:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia should show that Anglo-American Freemasonry was free from politics 'AND' present the fact that Freemasonry was actively engaged in politics in countries like France, Italy and Spain, especially since this involved Conspiracy Theory of the relevant periods, and since in countries like France and Italy where Freemasonry was deemed to be in league with Judaism, being a continuation of the Protocols conspiracy, depicted in artwork where the Symbol of the Star of David represented Freemasonry. That was how anti-masonic and anti-jewish groups started in Vichy France, when Petain proscribed Grand Orient in 1941. This article is about New World Order, and to exclude this topic from this article would be like excluding Neil Armstrong from discussing the first NASA manned lunar landing.Lung salad (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Lung salad (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that Lung salad is trying to counter an argument that has been edited to better reflect what the source meant (the author is a Canadian Mason talking about Anglo-American Freemasonry) thereby making his counter-argument unnecessary, he needs to seek consensus for his suggested changes BEFORE making them, especially in the light of the fact that his last edits (which I reverted) are ignoring the logic of the last two paragraphs of the Freemasony section of the article, which focuses on the most common Masonic apology against accusation of Masonic political conspiracy found in the first three paragraphs. Furthermore, even when he finds reliable sources, he writes sentences that do not accurately reflect what these sources state. --Loremaster (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Henry Coston and Nesta Webster are two good sources. Lung salad (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

There are links to this Wikipedia article from [3] and [4] so let's include references to those documents and what those documents are about - New World Order. The last two paragraphs to the portion about Freemasonry need to be amended and revised since they are far from conclusive endnotes to the subject matter, and I have added mention of the two documents. Lung salad (talk) 16:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Henry Coston and Nesta Webster are conspiracy theorists. Their books are not reliable sources for statements of facts nor should we interpret what they say. We can only mention their opinions through the commentary of notable mainstream scholars and journalists who discuss the conspiracy theories of Henry Coston and Nesta Webster.
2. I've explained in a section below that the last two paragraphs should not be edited to add content that should be in the first three paragraphs. --Loremaster (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Freemasonry and Taxil hoax

Is there a reason why we do not even mention the Taxil hoax in the section on Freemasonry? The claims that Taxil put forth during his hoax are still being repeated (as fact) by NWO conspiracy theorists today. Despite the fact that Taxil admitted that his claims were all a hoax, they were (and are) believed and repeated by numerous conspiracy theorists, and had a huge influence on subsequent anti-masonic claims about Freemasonry. It should be mentioned. Blueboar (talk) 12:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

We did mention it in the past or, at the very least, a sentence had a word linked to the Taxil hoax article. However, it was lost during the re-writing of the Freemasonry section. That being said, we need to find a reliable source (notable maintream scholar and journalist) which explicitly states that many NWO conspiracy theorists repeat as fact the claims put forth by Taxil and/or that the Taxil hoax had a huge influence on subsequent anti-Masonic conspiracy theories. --Loremaster (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest "Is it true what they say about Freemasonry?" by Art DeHoyos and S. Brent Morris. It goes into this extensively. Blueboar (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you quote here the parts about NWO conspiracy theorists? --Loremaster (talk) 02:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

There is an on-line edition here... the latter part of Chapter One contains a long list of authors who have repeated the Taxil claims. Blueboar (talk) 11:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Good. When I finish reading this, I'll think of the best way to integrate this claim. --Loremaster (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Loremaster (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Robison's influence on anti-masonry in the 1800s

While Chip Berlet may contend that John Robison's reactionary conspiracy theories produced/contributed to outbreaks of Protestant anti-Masonry in the United States during the 1800s, I think most historians would disagree. What really caused the wave of (mostly) Protestant anti-Masonic hysteria in the 1830s was the William Morgan Affair. Robison's theories really had little impact on that. In fact, I can not think of a single historian who, in writing about the Morgan Affair and the rise of the Anti-Masonic Party, even mentions Robison as an influence or factor. I think we should find a second source to corroborate what Berlet contends. He is a journalist after all, and not a historian, and he may be giving more weight to Robison than is warranted. Blueboar (talk) 11:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not necessarily Chip Berlet's opinion. He seems to be reporting a statement from historian David H. Bennett 's book [http://www.amazon.com/Party-Fear-American-Nativism-Movement/dp/0679767215 The Party Of Fear: The American Far Right from Nativism to the Militia Movement], which is considered one of the most comprehensive works covering right-wing movements in the United States since colonial times. That's the reason why I have reverted your edits when you attributed this statement to Berlet. That being said, I edited the sentence to use the word “influenced” you had first suggested. --Loremaster (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah... that is different (this was not clear from the citation). Would I be correct in thinking that the reason we cite Chip Berlet, and not David Bennet, is WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT? I think it would be better to get a copy of Bennet's book, and cite that directly. A respected historian is a better source than a journalist. Blueboar (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Although Berlet is being used as source for his work as a political analyst rather than a journalist, I have no problem with using Bennet as a source. Since you're a librarian, it might be easier for you to get your hands on a copy more quickly. --Loremaster (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a librarian... I am a historian (I run a Historical Society that, in part, focuses on Freemasonry)... but I do have relatively easy access to one of the better Masonic libraries in the country (the Livingston Library, run by the Grand Lodge of New York)... I'll see if they have a copy. Blueboar (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. --Loremaster (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Livingston Library does not have a copy in their collection. We will have to obtain a copy another way. Blueboar (talk) 12:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. --Loremaster (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Freemasonry and politics - neutral point of view

If it is to be cited that Freemasonry proclaims that it is not political, then it should also be cited that Freemasonry is political in nature, and is involved in politics. Neutral Point of View needs to be established in the article - one example how French Grand Orient Freemasonry is political in France:

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2860

Meanwhile, Sarkozy is considering amending the 1905 law separating Church and State. On Tuesday I referred to an interview conducted by Libération with Jean-Michel Quillardet, the grand master of the anti-Christian Grand Orient of France, the first Masonic lodge of France, who expressed his fears that the 1905 law would be in some way amended in favor of religion. As it turns out, guess who Sarkozy has appointed to modify the law? None other than Quillardet himself! This report is from E-Deo:

Jean-Michel Quillardet, Grand Master of the Grand Orient, visited the French president last Tuesday. After the meeting he expressed his relief and his satisfaction, assuring the press that the president was committed to leaving untouched the 1905 law separating Church and State except for a “few technical changes.” […]

[A]fter his interview with Jean-Michel Quillardet, Nicolas Sarkozy promised to visit the headquarters of the Grand Orient to acquaint himself with the principal doctrines of French masonic thought.

Lung salad (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm certain this is a reliable source [5] Lung salad (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The Freemasonry section of the article is NOT about the nature and history of Freemasonry but about accusations made by New World Order conspiracy theorists against Freemasonry and how Freemasons respond to these charges so, as I said before when we had this conversation many weeks/months ago and recently in a discussion thread above, we are reporting an assertion made by Freemasons when they are accused of engaging in political conspiracies. Whether or not this assertion is true or contradicted by some facts specific to a country and time period is irrelevant. Ultimately, 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, I'm not opposed to adding content from a reliable source that explicity counters the argument made by Freemasons by saying something like: “although Freemasons argue that Freemasonry is apolitical, there are numerous examples that prove the contrary, such as in France...” What you have presented so far doesn't do that. --Loremaster (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The part about Freemasonry not being interested in politics is laughable, and should be removed. Scholarly Citations have been provided about French Freemasonry's role in the Third Republic.Lung salad (talk)

The sentence was edited to clarify that Masonic apologists are only talking about Anglo-American Freemasonry so there is no need to talk about French Freemasonry's role in the Third Republic. --Loremaster (talk) 11:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Except that French Freemasonry is a vital ingredient in the subject matter of New World Order, and a new subheading can be introduced to include this. Lung salad (talk) 13:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a new subheading is necessary and it really depends what reliable sources have to say on the subject. --Loremaster (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Please explain why you consider the essays by M. L. McIsaac and Hamon & Hamon as unreliable sources on the history of Grand Orient Masonry and the Third French Republic. Lung salad (talk) 22:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources have been provided. Grand Orient was part of French politics and was accused of being part of New World Order conspiracy as a result of this. Grand Orient Freemasonry supported the policies of the Third Republic in its Annual Conferences and reliable sources of the period can be cited. Lung salad (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

1. One thing you need to accept is that just because you found what you think is a reliable source for content you want to add in article it doesn't mean that it should or has to be added in an article.
2. When someone reverts your edits, regardless of whether or not these edits involveadding content based on what you think is a reliable source, you need to seek consensus on this talk page through discussion and resolve the dispute before you restore your edits or make new ones. Just mentioning that you have reliable sources and restoring your reverted edits before anyone responds isn't enough nor it is appropriate. Even if it takes a day or a week before someone responds, you need to wait.
3. Correct me if I'm wrong but your sources do not specifically mention the New World Order and/or one world government conspiracy

--Loremaster (talk) 23:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You have failed again to explain why you consider the reliable sources as provided to be "unreliable" - is it just because you "don't like them" - is that the reason? You need to provide something better than that. The Jews to the antisemites were regarded as the big threat, and instigators and masters of the forthcoming New World Order. Both by French and German Nazis, and their suspected involvement in Freemasonry was part of that perception. Lung salad (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

1. The work of a conspiracy theorist is obviously not a reliable source. You need to cite a notable scholar/journalist who discusses the work of a conspiracy theorist.
2. Just because you are adding content that is based on a reliable source it doesn't mean that this content is relevant or fits where you put it.
3. The problem isn't always the reliability of the source but the accuracy of your interpretation of content found in the source. You often write/edit sentences to says things that the source doesn't.
4. I am well aware that Jews were regarded as the ultimate conspirators since I mention them in several sections of the article.
5. You need to understand the logic and structure of some sections and the fact that we need to be mindful not to make this article longer than it already is.

--Loremaster (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Disputed content

Why should the inclusion of non-Anglo and non-American Freemasonry be disputed material? Why can't material on Freemasonry found in other Wikipedia articles not be included in this article? Why can't the Grand Orient of France be mentioned in this article? Why should these additions be regarded as disputed? Any answers? Anyone? Lung salad (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The header to the discussion page reads: "Please be neutral when editing this highly sensitive article. It discusses a topic about which people have diverse opinions."

I have added another scholarly source giving evidence that the Grand Orient was involved in politics with the French Third Republic. And I can continue providing similar sources.

The Political Situation in France by A. Hamon, H. Hamon, [The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 11, No. 1 (Jul., 1905), pp. 107-128]

"Every year the Radical and Socialist Radical parties hold a general congress, where all the delegates of the groups that follow Radicalism meet. Frequently these groups are electoral committees which live only during the period of the election. They have but a small number of members, and sometimes the delegate appoints himself. The Radical and Socialist Radical congress appoints from among its members an executive committee. Recently the president of this committee was M. Bertaux, a deputy who served as minister of war in the Combes cabinet [Emile Combes: Prime Minister of France 1902-5; who was also a Freemason and a Spiritualist]. Its president is now Jean Bourrat, a deputy. The difference between the Socialist Radicals and the Radicals lies in the varying degree of emphasis which they place upon democratic reform.

As we have already seen, French conservatism has a live organ in the "Third Order". Radicalism possesses a similar organ in Freemasonry, represented especially by the "Grand Orient of France". It is difficult to ascertain the numbers in this secret association. It is known that they are divided into lodges, each of which has a president, who is styled "Venerable", and several other officers. There may be several lodges in the same town, according to its importance. The Freemasons of the Grand Orient of France hold an annual convention. Though secret, this convention was freely discussed in the press this year. It appoints a permanent council, which is charged with the direction of French Masonic affairs. This council is called the "Council of Order". Its president is M. Lafferre, a deputy and a barrister. Besides the Grand Orient of France, and in friendly relations with it, there are the "Grand Lodge of France" and the "Supreme Council" for France and its dependencies. These constitute what is commonly called the "Scottish Rite". It appears that the influence of the Scottish Rite Masons is less than that of the Grand Orient, whose lodges cover the whole country.

Republicans of all shades of opinion live harmoniously side by side in these Masonic lodges. M. Bonnet, the orator of the last convention, said in his speech, as reported by the newspapers: "We are the only association - and we are proud and happy to say so - where moderate but true Republicans, Radicals, Socialists, and Libertarians discusss together all the political, economic, and social problems." It seems, however, from what is known in the lodges, that the great majority of Freemasons are Radicals, with a Socialist minority in Paris, Marseilles, and other large cities. As for Libertarians and Anarchists, their number is very small.

The tendencies and program of Freemasonry may be considered as those of the Radical and Socialist Radical parties. The Grand Orient of France is unanimously anti-clerical. Its members one and all demand the seperation of church and state. Once this goal has been attained - and it has the first place upon its program - it will work for the political "purification" of the state functionaries; that is, the appointment to government positions of such persons only as have proved themselves to be good republicans. It desires a state monopoly of all elementary instruction, thus completely debarring the clergy from teaching. It favours laws increasing the liberty of citizens with respect to divorce, the press, etc. It advocates democratic legislation, improving the condition of the working classes in city and country, making taxes weigh more heavily upon the rich than upon the poor, providing for old-age pensions, introducing an inheritance and an income tax, fixing a weekly holiday, etc. Aside from the question of the seperation of church and state, and the destruction of the last remnant of the political power of the church, the Freemasons are, however, not entirely agreed on all of these points, some favoring a more thoroughgoing scheme of democratic reform than others."

Lung salad (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

1. The Freemasonry section of the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article is not and should not be about very single details concerning the history of Freemasonry and anti-Masonry. It is about specific accusations made by New World Order conspiracy theorists against Freemasonry and how Freemasons and/or non-Masonic skeptics respond to these charges. The first three paragraph focus on the former while the last two paragraphs focus on the latter.
2. The last two paragraphs shouldn't be filled with content that should be in the first three paragraphs unless it is clear that is based on a reliable source that is directly responding to an argument made by the Masonic apologist. In other words, you need to find a source that explicitly says “Freemasons defend themselves by arguing XYZ but here is evidence that contradicts their argument”.
3. The source we are using as a source for an apology of Freemasonry is a Canadian Mason talking about Anglo-American Freemasonry. Facts about French Freemasonry are irrelevant here.
4. The Freemasonry section focuses on New World Order conspiracy theories implicating American Freemasons. Although I'm not opposed to expanding this section to have a more international point of view, we need to focus on what reliable sources on the subject of New World Order conspiracism focus on.
5. The role of Freemasonry in the politics of the Third Republic of France is irrelevant to this section unless we have a reliable source that specifically and explicitly mentions that this historical fact was influential in the development of New World Order conspiracy theories.
6. Not all conspiracy theories implicating Freemasons are about the New World Order and/or one world government.
7. You cannot edit sentences that are already referenced to reliable sources to say something he/she didn't say or didn't mean just to set up a counter-argument you want to add.

--Loremaster (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Very well then, another subheading to this article entitled "Grand Orient Freemasonry" can be created to deal with that aspect of New World Order conspiracy theory - this is also relevant since it involved anti-semitism that led to the extermination of 6 million Jews (Vichy France were grateful to the Nazis for ridding it of its Jews). There is therefore no longer any need for a reference to P2 in your verdict on Anglo-American Freemasonry, since that is Italian masonry. The Grand Orient Freemasonry needs to be addressed since Wikipedia has dealt with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Edouard Drumont and both of these subject matters deal with Masonry, Conspiracy theories and Anti-semitism. Lung salad (talk) 23:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

1. We can integrate content about New World Order conspiracy theories involving Grand Orient Freemasonry in a new paragraph without creating a new subheading.
2. Some branches of Freemasonry being involved in politics and Freemasonry as a whole (or Anglo-American Freemasonry in particular) having a hidden political agenda is not the same thing. The former is perfectly legitimate while the latter is sinister.
3. As I said explained to you many times before, regardless of what you consider to be contradictory facts, Freemasons are entitled to argue whatever they want so the reference to PS stays.
4. I am reverting your edits and I suggest you present your changes here (so we can see what they would like and discuss them) before editing the article further.

--Loremaster (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

If it's a section specifically about ANGLO-AMERICAN Freemasonry, then that needs to be highlighted in both the subheading and in the text, with the reference to P2 removed, and I have done that. There are references that P2 was and is a political masonic movement - and if P2 is to be mentioned, citations need to be included that it is regarded as a political masonic movement. Lung salad (talk) 04:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

This is an objective and Neutral Point of View Wikipedia article, personal objections to mentioning links between Freemasonry and politics should not be allowed to hinder the quality of content of this article. Lung salad (talk) 05:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Freemasonry affairs within politics is a world reality and the subject matter should not be suppressed on Wikipedia. Not in this article nor in any other Wikipedia article. There is no reason to discuss this subject matter here if the discussion is being used as part of a censorship agenda procedure by Wikipedia editors who wish to introduce censorship on Wikipedia. Lung salad (talk) 05:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Whether not or we decide to include your suggested changes, can you PLEASE discuss them here and wait for a consensus to emerge before editing the article again? Is that really too much to ask? --Loremaster (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Except that you do not participate in discussion - what you do is put your edits on the article and then delete any edits that you do not agree with - then say "please discuss until a consensus is reached" - and you do not discuss. You just keep deleting other people's edits all the time without discussing, behaving like you were the final arbiter of Wikipedia articles. Lung salad (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Question to Lung salad... I completely agree that the Grand Orient style Freemasonry has been (and continues to be) heavily involved in politics ... but... what does this involvement have to do with the New World Order conspiracy theory? Blueboar (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The article is New World Conspiracy Theory and Judaism was suspected of starting a New World Order based on collaboration with Freemasonry. The inclusion of Grand Orient Masonry is justified in this respect. Without this there would not have been conspiracy theorists like Drumont and Coston. Lung salad (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Why not? Blueboar (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Because Drumont and Coston objected to what Grand Orient Freemasonry had become - non-Catholic and steeped in secular philosophy, blaming it all on Jewish infliltration of the lodges. Lung salad (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

When I reverted your edits, I was at work so I didn't have the time to discuss but I did tell you that I would explain myself later that day or the day after. However, you seem so obsessed with (clumsily) adding your content in the article that you are incapable of being patient enough to simply wait a few hours or a day or two for me to come back here and explain my objections, which I did. That being said, my suggestion was simple: Rather than editing the article, write your proposed new version of the Freemasonry section here on this talk so that we can discuss it, possibly makes changes, and form a consensus. Currently, the Grand Orient section you have created is a nightmare of superfluous content about the history of French Freemasonry that should not be in this article. Ultimately, please remember that just because content come from the most reliable source in the world it doesn't mean it is relevant and that it should be included in this article. --Loremaster (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the added subsection, except perhaps it can contain more material relating to the subject matter of New World Order. The Catholic newspaper La Croix was strongly supportive of Drumont and became the first to review his book La France Juive in 1886. In 1898 the newspaper published the pamphlet Le Complot Juif ("The Jewish Conspiracy") containing the Jewish plan of world domination. The Jews depicted as controllers of the press, the economy, and government, as well as disseminators of revolution and government. Lung salad (talk) 19:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The entire subsection should be deleted since it doesn't respect the logic of the Conspiracy theories section of the article, which consists of reporting New World Order conspiracy theories involving a particular group followed by criticisms by skeptics which debunks these conspiracy theories. However, some of it's content can and should be integrated in the original Freemasonry section of the article, while the paragraphs dealing with Masonic apologetics should be edited to remove statements that only apply to Anglo-American Freemasonry and replace them with statements that apply to both Anglo-American and Continental Freemasonry. Could this proposed compromise work for you? --Loremaster (talk) 01:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

If the above subsection is to do with the Anglo/American Freemasonry then what is the reference to Italian P2 doing there? Where is the logic in that nonsense? Perhaps you stuck that in to underpin your POV that Freemasonry has never been involved in politics, and any such belief demonstrates adherence to some "conspiracy theory"? You're the last person on Wikipedia to preach about logic. Lung salad (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I've always known that some branches of Freemasonry were involved in politics! You seem to forget that in late June I had a huge debate with Blue Boar and you over my intent to add content in the article (based on Margaret C. Jacob's 1991 book Living the Enlightenment: Freemasonry and Politics in Eighteenth-Century Europe) which would have specifically stated that, in Continental Europe, Freemasons became involved in politics in order to create a moral and social order based upon reason and virtue, and dedicated to the principles of liberty and equality. This line would have help explained why reactionary conspiracy theorists became obsessed with Freemasonry. However, a consensus formed against my intent and the content was deleted.

As for the specific reference to the Italian P2, it was mentioned because many conspiracy theorists point to it as proof that Freemasonry has a hidden political agenda but the Masonic researcher argues that this lodge is Italian therefore not representative of Anglo-American Freemasonry and, more crucially, this lodge was illegal and therefore not truly Masonic so it cannot be used as proof of anything.

That being said, we are reporting an argument made by a Masonic research who writes extensively on anti-Masonic conspiracy theories. Whether or not his argument is true and accurate is irrelevant to whether or not it should included in the article because the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth nor accuracy — 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 or accurate. --Loremaster (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see, only YOUR CITATIONS count and nobody else's citations - an author's OPINION matters more than citations that refer to historical facts and to historical events, because a certain author's opinion fits in with your POV - right? Lung salad (talk) 09:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

My personal POV is irrelevant. The Freemasonry section would be written quite differently if I was trying to push my POV into it. My point is simply that a Wikipedia article must report both facts and significant opinions we can find in reliable sources. Now, as I suggested in a compromise, I am quite open to adding some of the content you suggested. However, you need to understand that some of the content you suggested, regardless of how well-cited is, is superfluous in a section that is dealing with a specific subject. That being said, you seem to forget something: Although I still disagree with it, I had to accept the consensus in June that all the content I added in the introductory paragraph of the Freemasonry section would be deleted because it was deemed superfluous. So the notion that only my citations count in this article is obvious false. --Loremaster (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Page protection

I don't know if my request will be granted, but I've requested page protection to stop the edit warring. Please don't edit right now, work this out here and get consensus. 06:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

A Wikipedia editor is attempting to censor a subject matter from being included in this article. Also trying to use the Talk Page argument to bring that censorship into effect. I seriously doubt that the Wikipedia editor in question will ever be prepared to accept the subject matter from ever being placed in this article, although it exists in other articles on Wikipedia - and the subject matter is accepted part of historical scholarship. Scholarly citations have been used. The Talk Page has been used to attempt to introduce consensus. It has all failed. Lung salad (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The next stage should be a WP:RFC. Please remember to show good faith, this isn't censorship but a content dispute. Dougweller (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

All of Lung salad's September 3 edits should be removed until this dispute is resolved because, besides containing grammatical errors and Wikipedia guidelines violations, are deteriorating the quality of the article. --Loremaster (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I have cited scholarly sources to the edits I have included in the article. I do not see how citing scholarly sources "deteriorate the quality of the article" - unless of course there is material in the article that you want to have censored for some reason. Perhaps now you can finally answer the question why it is you consider that the scholarly sources that I have cited are "unreliable" or even "wrong" (your above comments). Here is the Talk Page. Please discuss. Lung salad (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

1. The work of a conspiracy theorist is obviously not a reliable source. You need to cite a notable scholar/journalist who discusses the work of a conspiracy theorist.
2. Just because you are adding content that is based on a reliable source it doesn't mean that this content is relevant or fits where you put it.
3. The problem isn't always the reliability of the source but the accuracy of your interpretation of content found in the source. You often write/edit sentences to says things that the source doesn't.
4. You need to understand the logic and structure of some sections and the fact that we need to be mindful not to make this article longer than it already is.
5. Ultimately, you need to WAIT until the dispute is resolved and consensus has been reached BEFORE editing the article. This isn't my personal wish. It is a Wikipedia guideline that you need to abide by or face consequences.

--Loremaster (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The page is protected, so nothing will be changed during this period (except minor copy editing if requested). I've suggested an RfC, Loremaster, why don't you start one? Dougweller (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Doug, it's obvious Loremaster has a problem with accepting the fact that Freemasonic bodies existed that were involved with politics, and there still is no answer to my question "Why were the scholarly citations I used either "wrong" or "unreliable" Lung salad (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I have never had a problem with what I've always acknowledged to be a historical fact. My objection was to a sentence that a misleading synthesis of several sources to say something that didn't say. --Loremaster (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The work of a conspiracy theorist is not a reliable source, yet Loremaster wrote "Scottish physicist John Robison and French Jesuit priest Augustin Barruel, began speculating that the Illuminati survived their suppression and became the masterminds behind the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror" - without referencing any scholarly sources and leaving the reader relying on his say-so. The conspirtacy theorists I cited were referenced to scholarly works. Lung salad (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The sentence is in a paragraph that has always been referenced to Trevor W. McKeown's A Bavarian Illuminati primer. --Loremaster (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Loremaster did not engage in discussion last night until AFTER a long edit war. I made some comments on the Talk Page that were ignored because Loremaster was too busy deleting my edits without comment. Let's get things straight. Lung salad (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

During the edit war, I explained in one of my edit summaries that I would engage in you in discussion later that day or the next day. You should have simply been patient and waited. That's what most non-fanatical people do. --Loremaster (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Points 1,2,3,4, and 5 are all unjustified. The article is New World Conspiracy Theory and Judaism was suspected of starting a New World Order based on collaboration with Freemasonry. The inclusion of Grand Orient Masonry is justified in this respect. Lung salad (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree... the accusation that there was/is a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy does not distinguish between Anglo-American and Franco-European branches of Freemasonry (I often wish it would, but it doesn't). Blueboar (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It did in France, where it was active. And the subsection was originally written to balance the original argument that "Freemasonry had no politics". It was only later amended by Loremaster to refer only to Anglo-American Freemasonry when I pointed out that was not true of all Freemasonry. Lung salad (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says the French proponents of the NWO theory draw (or drew) a distinction between Anglo-American Freemasonry and Franco-continental Freemasonry. If so, then I could see adding something about it. Otherwise, No.

Grand Orient de France was used as an ingredient to promote the Judeo-Masonic World domination theory. Its archives were seized by the Russian army and taken to Moscow after World War 2, and there's a contemporary Eastern European anti-semitic author that has used that material in one of their books. Lung salad (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I think a lot of what you are doing here amounts to an improper synthesis (of the kind that is discussed at WP:NOR)... you seem to be taking two disparate ideas: a) Continental style Freemasonry is involved in politics (and specifically left wing politics), b) Freemasonry has been accused of being part of a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy... and reaching the conclusion that c) these two things are connected and have something to do with the NWO conspiracy theory. You can source statements a and b... but you need a source for the conclusion c. Do such sources exist? Blueboar (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The entire Freemasonry (Grand Orient) subsection should be deleted since it doesn't respect the logic of the Conspiracy theories section of the article, which consists of reporting New World Order conspiracy theories involving a particular group followed by criticisms by skeptics which debunks these conspiracy theories. However, some of it's content can and should be integrated in the original Freemasonry section of the article, while the paragraphs dealing with Masonic apologetics should be edited to remove statements that only apply to Anglo-American Freemasonry and replace them with statements that apply to both Anglo-American and Continental Freemasonry. Could this proposed compromise work for you? --Loremaster (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Masonic apologetics, that speaks volumes about Loremaster's soapbox. Lung salad (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that I'm neither pro-Mason nor anti-Mason, by “Masonic apologetics”, I am simply referring to the fact that the Freemasonry section of the article reports the most common accusations that Freemasons are involved in a New World Order conspiracy and the most common arguments some Freemasons use in response to these charges. That being said, you have avoided answering a question that could lead to a resolution of this dispute so I will ask it again: Could this proposed compromise work for you? --Loremaster (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that I don't think there are many statements that can apply to both forms of Freemasonry. They really are very different animals. Blueboar (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. For example, one could argue that, although some forms of Freemasonry are political, a totalitarian one-world government is inconsistent with Masonic principles, etc. So, an argument that takes into account the political activism of Continental Freemasonry can easily be applied to all forms of Freemasonry. --Loremaster (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that not all Freemasons would agree with your assertion that a totalitarian one-world government is inconsistent with Masonic principles (Masons disagree on just about everything... especially politics). Granted, it would probably cause yet another schism in Freemasonry, because lots of Freemasons would agree with you (including me)... but I could easily see it happening. Blueboar (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Ironically, that's exactly what the last paragraph of the Freemasonry section already says so we already have an argument that applies to all form of Freemasonry. That being said, when writing a Wikipedia article, the only thing that is important is reporting what notable Masonic writers have to say as well as what notable non-Masonic scholars have to say on the subject. The opinion of a non-notable Freemason doesn't matter even if it proves the point that not all Freemasons believe XYZ. --Loremaster (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Loremaster needs to do homework on Freemasonry, and not edit another article about it until caught up. Freemasonry is more than petty nonsense about symbolism on the Great Seal, etc Lung salad (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that many reliable sources state that symbolism on the Great Seal is a major obession of modern New World Order conspiracy theorists, you need to remember that this article is NOT about Freemasonry. It is about New World Order conspiracy theory. Therefore, this article contains a section dealing with New World Order conspiracy theories involving Freemasonry and criticisms of these theories by Freemasons and/or non-Masonic skeptics. Details about the nature and history of Freemasonry that is not directly connected to this specific focus is superfluous and should not be in this article. So, although I have done more research on Freemasonry than you can imagine, extensive knowledge of Freemasonry is not necessary for someone to contribute to this section. One only needs to find the most reliable sources on New World Order conspiracy theories involving Freemasonry and criticisms of these theories by Freemasons and/or non-Masonic skeptics. Nothing more. Nothing less. --Loremaster (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The Judeo-Masonic Plot has no link with New World Order Conspiracy Theory! Lung salad (talk) 09:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Lung, are you being serious here, or sarcastic? There is definitely a link... In many ways the Judeo-Masonic Plot theory was a historical forerunner of the NWO theory (not the only forerunner, but a forerunner never the less). We can trace many of the claims that modern NWO theorists make about Freemasonry directly to claims made by Judeo-Masonic Plot theorists of the early 20th century. That said... the J-M Plot theory is not the same as the NWO theory. The two overlap in many places, but there are also differences and places where they don't overlap. Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

So you do agree that where they DO overlap pertaining to NWO that should be mentioned within the article? The Protocols are after all mentioned in this article Lung salad (talk) 07:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. That's never been an issue. The problem is the superfluous content you wanted to add and the clumsy way you add content even when it is good. So can we please get back to discussing the compromise I suggested? --Loremaster (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No one is denying that many conspiracy theorists believe that a New World Order is the ultimate goal of the judeo-masonic conspiracy: Some (but not all) of the content you suggested dealing with French Freemasonry and anti-Masonic/anti-Semitic conspiracy theories is legitimate and should be added. The problem is the clumsy way you tried to do it. That's what I am objecting to. --Loremaster (talk) 11:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Freemasonry

P2

Franco Ferraresi seems to believe that P2 was political in nature in his book Threats to democracy: the radical right in Italy after the war, which was why it was disbanded by the government. Lung salad (talk) 09:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/P2 Lung salad (talk) 09:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

uh, who argued that P2 wasn't political? The Masonic researcher we are using as a source hasn't. I haven't. So what's your point? --Loremaster (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

A more important question... Does Ferraresi discuss P2's politics in connection with the NWO? If not, then his belief is irrelevant in the context of this article. Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Who does mention P2's politics in relation to NWO? If anyone does, Ferrasesi can be used as a reliable source about the reality of P2. Lung salad (talk) 07:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Ferrasesi's position is based on primary source materials - not on paragraphs and paragraphs devoid of any footnotes. Lung salad (talk) 07:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but does Ferraresi discuss P2's politics in connection with the NWO? Can you provide a quote showing that he does? If he doesn't, he's not an appropriate source here, as making the link between what he says and what others say would violate WP:SYNTH --Nuujinn (talk) 11:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

For those who are confused by this non-sensical dispute, you need to know that the Freemasonry section of the article originally ended with the following sentence:

Ultimately, Freemasons argue that even if it were proven that influential individuals have used and are using Masonic Lodges to engage in crypto-politics, such as was the case with the illegal Italian Lodge Propaganda Due, this would represent a cooptation of Freemasonry rather than evidence of its hidden agenda.

Lung salad objected to the mention of P2 because he thinks that there should be no mention of Italian Freemasonry if the section focuses on Anglo-American Freemasonry. It's utterly ridiculous. Can we please get back to discussing the compromise I suggested? --Loremaster (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The above quotation should contain citations. Lung salad (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Um... It did contain a citation ... to: Keown, Trevor W. (5 May 2004). "What was the P2 Lodge?". Anti-masonry Frequently Asked Questions. Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon A.F. & A. M. ... GLBC&Y is certainly in the Anglo tradition, so I don't see what the problem is. Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Since I'm not even arguing to restore the mention of P2 in the article that was deleted by Lung salad, I don't even understand why we are having this debate. --Loremaster (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be no published debunkings in existence of P2 as a NWO "threat", so I guess that means David Icke must be "right" about that. Lung salad (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? --Loremaster (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please explain? Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Can only include citations relevant to the subject matter, right? If there are no debunkings of P2 in context of NWO, there is nothing to cite. Lung salad (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Some anti-Masonic New World Order conspiracy theorists use P2 as proof that Freemasonry has a hidden political agenda (in constrast to an open politial agenda such as the Grand Orient of France lobbying for maintaining the seperation of church and state). The Masonic researcher we cited explained why P2 doesn't prove that at all. This is relevent information in this article even if he doesn't specifically mention the New World Order conspiracy theory itself in his debunking of P2. That being said, I'm not interested in restoring the mention of P2 since it was superfluous so this debate is pointless. --Loremaster (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I would agree. WP:Due weight plays a role here... even within the spectrum of NWO theorists there are some claims that are widely made, and some that are made by only one or two theorists. We should focus on the widely made ones and not really bother to mention the ones that are generally ignored by the bulk of theorists. A P2 connection to the NWO falls into the latter category. Compare this to the belief that the street plan of Washington DC contains hidden Masonic emblems ... that is something which most NWO theorists include. Blueboar (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. However, the original mention of P2 in the article was very trivial. It was almost put between parantheses next to a “i.e.”. It's not like an entire paragraph was about claims surrounding P2. This is why I keep repeating that this huge debate about this is silly. --Loremaster (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Yup. Blueboar (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Margaret C. Jacob

The personal views of Margaret C. Jacob (who is a copycat author adding no original research to her books) should not dominate this article to the exclusion of material by Judith F. Stone, the Revue Maçonnique, M. L. McIsaac, or A. Hamon, H. Hamon Lung salad (talk) 07:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Although Margaret C. Jacob is a reliable source according to Wikipedia guidelines and therefore can be used regardless of your criticisms, the content based her a summary of her book that I added to the article was deleted in June so this rant of yours is pointless. Can we please get back to discussing the compromise I suggested? --Loremaster (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The sources that I use are considered reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. The summary of Margaret C Jacob's book can be used but the article will not be confined to her opinions. There are other scholars in the world. Lung salad (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No one has ever proposed confining the article to her opinions and no one is disputing the reliability of some of your sources! The problem is the revelance of the some of the content you want to add and the way in which you try to integrate this content into the article. Can we please get back to discussing the compromise I suggested? --Loremaster (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

We should not use Margaret Jacob, because she does not discuss Freemasonry in connection to the NWO conspiracy theory (either to make a conspiracy claim or to rebut one). Same with other historians that don't discuss Freemasonry in connection to the NWO conspiracy theory.

Please remember the purpose and focus of this article is... its purpose and focus is to explain to our readers a) what the NWO conspiracy theory is and how it developed, 2) what its proponents claim, and 3) what others say in reply to those claims. The focus must remain firmly within those three goals. A lot of the argument that seems to be going on about the various forms of Freemasonry seems extraneous to those three goals. Focus people... it's important. This is an article about the NWO theory... not an article about Freemasonry. So, this article is about a distinct set of claims and rebuttals to those claims. Blueboar (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. --Loremaster (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Except that the Judeo-Masonic plot existed out of the reality of organisations like Grand Orient de France where Freemasonry was involved with politics, and was the reason for the creation of this conspiracy theory. Lung salad (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That may well be true... but our verifiability policy tells us that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is Verifiability, not truth". We can't mention it in an article unless we have a source that mentions it (even if it is true). And the WP:No original research policy expands on that idea... saying we should not mention things in a specific article unless we have a source that directly connects it to the topic of the specific article... in this case, the NWO theory.

In other words, if we are going to say that organisations like Grand Orient de France were involved with politics, and this was the reason for the creation of this Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory which is talked about by NWO theorist, what we need is a single source that makes all the connections you are making... one source that explicitly says that a) Masonic organizations like Grand Orient de France were involved with politics, and that b) this caused the creation of the theory that there exists a Judeo-Masonic plot and c) this became a sub-theory of the NWO theorists.

If even one link in this chain of logic is from your own thinking and understanding of the topic ... then its what WP:NOR calls a synthetic statement... we can't say it, even if the logic chain is accurate. Blueboar (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, and well said. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't have said it better myself. --Loremaster (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Well written articles

Well written articles stand for nothing if what they contain is useless. Visitors to Wikipedia articles are not silly Lung salad (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Creating a new discussion thread simply to rant against the article is not productive. Please make specific proposals to improve the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article or keep your opinions to yourself. --Loremaster (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That was my point about you. Lung salad (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I have made a specific proposal but you refuse to discuss it. So let me repeat: The entire subsection should be deleted since it doesn't respect the logic of the Conspiracy theories section of the article, which consists of reporting New World Order conspiracy theories involving a particular group followed by criticisms by skeptics which debunks these conspiracy theories. However, some of it's content can and should be integrated in the original Freemasonry section of the article, while the paragraphs dealing with Masonic apologetics should be edited to remove statements that only apply to Anglo-American Freemasonry and replace them with statements that apply to both Anglo-American and Continental Freemasonry. Could this proposed compromise work for you? --Loremaster (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

And there were considerable faults in the original Freemasonry subsection that had no bearing at all to NWO. Lung salad (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Which parts? Blueboar (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Lung salad, I'm not sure what you are referring to exactly but I will say this: Even if you don't believe that, for example, the reverse side of the Great Seal of the United States has any bearing to a New World Order conspiracy, you need to know, understand, and accept that it has been documented that many many conspiracy theorists do. This is the reason why, for example, political scientist Michael Barkun put part of the Great Seal on the cover of his book A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America. --Loremaster (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Draft for a new Freemasonry section

In order to resolve this dispute, here is my first draft for a new Freemasonry section. I've put in bold the content that is new:

Freemasonry is one of the world's oldest secular fraternal organizations, which arose in late 16th- to early 17th-century Britain. Over the years a number of allegations and conspiracy theories have been directed towards Freemasonry, including the allegation that Freemasons are conspiring to bring about a New World Order, a world government organized according to Masonic principles and/or governed only by Freemasons.

The esoteric nature of Masonic symbolism and rites led to Freemasons being first accused of secretly practicing Satanism in the late 1700s. The original allegation of a conspiracy within Freemasonry to subvert religions and governments in order to take over the world traces back to Scottish author John Robison, whose reactionary conspiracy theories crossed the Atlantic, and during the 1800s influenced outbreaks of Protestant anti-Masonry in the United States. In the 1890s, French writer Léo Taxil wrote a series of pamphlets and books, denouncing Freemasonry, charging their lodges with worshiping Lucifer. Despite the fact that Taxil admitted that his claims were all a hoax, they were and are believed and repeated by numerous conspiracy theorists, and had a huge influence on subsequent anti-Masonic claims about Freemasonry.

While the Anglo-American Freemasons rigidly adhered to their rule that Freemasonry must not become involved in politics, Freemasons in the Grand Orient of France not only took part in political activity but went so far as to become closely involved with the Radical Party, a moderate political party of the center-left which became the most important party of the Third Republic of France at the end of the 19th century. French far-right agitators, such as Edouard Drumont and Henry Coston, accused the Grand Orient of France of being under the control of Jewish conspirators bent on world domination.

Some conspiracy theorists would eventually accuse some of the Founding Fathers of the United States, such as George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, of having Masonic designs interwoven into American society, particularly in the Great Seal of the United States, the United States one-dollar bill, the architecture of National Mall landmarks, and the streets and highways of Washington, D.C., as part of a grand conspiracy. Accordingly, colonial American Freemasons are portrayed as having embraced Bavarian Illuminism and used the power of the occult to bind their planning of a government in conformity with the plan of the "Masonic God" — Lucifer worshipped as the Supreme Being — because of their belief that the "Great Architect of the Universe" has tasked the United States with the eventual establishment of the "Kingdom of God on Earth" — a Masonic world theodemocracy with New Jerusalem as its capital city and the Third Temple as its holiest site — the initially utopian New World Order presided over by the Antichrist.

Freemasons rebut these claims of Masonic conspiracy. Freemasonry, which promotes rationalism, places no power in occult symbols themselves, and it is not a part of its principles to view the drawing of symbols, no matter how large, as an act of consolidating or controlling power. Furthermore, there is no published information establishing the Masonic membership of the men responsible for the design of the Great Seal. The Latin phrase "novus ordo seclorum", appearing on the reverse side of the Great Seal since 1782 and on the back of the one-dollar bill since 1935, means "New Order of the Ages" and only alludes to the beginning of an era where the United States is an independent nation-state, but is often mistranslated by conspiracy theorists as "New Secular Order" or "New World Order". Lastly, Freemasons argue that, despite the symbolic importance of the Temple of Solomon in their mythology, they have no interest in rebuilding it, especially since "it is obvious that any attempt to interfere with the present condition of things [on the Temple Mount] would in all probability bring about the greatest religious war the world has ever known".

More broadly, Freemasons argue that the accusation that Freemasonry has a hidden agenda to establish a Masonic government ignores several facts. While agreeing on certain Masonic Landmarks, the many independent and sovereign Grand Lodges act as such, and do not agree on many other points of belief and practice. Also, as can be seen from a survey of famous Freemasons, individual Freemasons hold beliefs that span the spectrum of politics. The term "Masonic government" has no meaning since individual Freemasons hold many different opinions on what constitutes a good government.

What do you all think? --Loremaster (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Can I assume that all this can be properly sourced, and that those sources discuss these points within the context of discussing something to do with the NWO directly? If not it's probably synthetic OR. Blueboar (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Lung salad claims he has such sources. So the ball is in his court... --Loremaster (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Compromise?

Compromise is a word some editors fail to understand Lung salad (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Instead of making snide remarks, can you PLEASE discuss my proposal above? If not, you are making it hard for us to assume your good faith... --Loremaster (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Loremaster, while I admire your desire to reach a compromise, I would say that until reliable secondary sources are presented which directly support the assertions Lung Salad wants to add, there's nothing really to discuss. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

OK. Well, if that is the case, the article should be unlocked immediately so that we can delete the content he added (which he is free to restore once he provided reliable sources to support some of his claims) and resume improving the article. --Loremaster (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to make the change, I believe the lock has expired. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see. Well, can someone intervene if Lung salad starts edit warring? --Loremaster (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I think there are enough eyes here that we can manage to discuss the issues if there are any objections. Sources should be presented to support assertions, and if we keep a level head, there's no need for edit warring (which takes more than one party). We can also ask for additional help at an appropriate notice board if need be. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Good. --Loremaster (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

USS Liberty

I suggest adding/amending the "USS Liberty incident" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident to this article if/where appropriate. Of course a consensus will probably need to be met to determine if such fits in as evidence/information of the NWO conspiracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.106.13 (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The issue isn't even one of consensus but of reliable sources. You need to find a notable mainstream journalist or scholar who explicitly states that some conspiracy theorists link the USS Liberty incident to the alleged New World Order conspiracy. --Loremaster (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales

a page without a lie is a nonexist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.111.104.63 (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Please note that this talk page is intended for discussions about how to improve the article. Edits attempting to call out Jimmy Wales or allege that the article contains lies are not particularly constructive. Perhaps you should point out to us which excerpts of the article you feel are poorly sourced or inaccurate? Then we can address your specific concerns with the article. John Shandy` • talk 18:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, we could have just removed this under WP:DENY and issued a uw-socialnetwork warning. This fellow's post goes along with the sort of M.O. for unconstructive true believers or trolls imitating such individuals. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ian. --Loremaster (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

That's fine by me. I typically forget or refrain from doing so because of the typical "omg you're trying to censor me, you must be on the Illuminati payroll!" type of response, which we never seem to be able to live down. On some level I do think some editors underestimate the degree of nonsense we endure on controversial articles such as this, so part of me sees value in leaving a few examples in plain sight now and then. As for user welcome (or user warning) templates, I'm not familiar with the names of most of them and I haven't had much luck in locating all of them through searches since they have inconsistent naming conventions - if you could point me in the right direction for them Ian, I'd much appreciate it. Feel free to remove this thread. John Shandy` • talk 02:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Notable 'futurists" claim that a global socialist police state is inevitable

Should this be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.241.128 (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

1. If you want to suggest additions to the article, please always provide a reliable source and a citation of the content in this source to support such suggestions.
2. Claims from notable futurists claiming that a global socialist police state is inevitable may be relevant BUT please remember that this article is about New World Order conspiracy theory therefore we ideally need to find a notable futurist who claims that the global socialist police state imagined by conspiracy theorists is inevitable.

--Loremaster (talk) 02:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Lung salad's criticisms

Direct quotes from online sources

When copying and pasting texts from online sources, these should contain quotation marks for purposes of accuracy and integrity. Lung salad (talk) 23:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I've edited the last paragraph of the Freemasonry section of the article to resolve all the issues that Lung salad has raised once and for all. --Loremaster (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Freemasonry and Politics - Again

A biased online source was used to promote the claim that there was no connection between Freemasonry and Politics. Whilst retaining this citation as an example of that particular point of view, I have included the information that Freemasonry in some countries has been involved in conventional politics - using France as an example (others include Italy, Portugal and Spain). I have provided citations from scholarly sources to substantiate the statements. Wikipedia has articles on Grand Orient de France where this information is already given, and it can also be included here. Editors should strive to maintain Neutral Point of View in Wikipedia articles and avoid any particular bias. Lung salad (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

While well-sourced additions for interesting exceptions are welcome, we should be careful about WP:GEVAL. If Freemasonry as a whole avoids politics, and there are libertarians, fascists, socialists, capitalists, (theistic) secularists, and fundamentalists in the lodges, it's pretty clear that what happened in France was the exception, not the rule. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It's still happening today in France and in Italy. Spain and Portugal are similar. It would be misleading to give a blank statement claim that "there is no politics in Freemasonry". Lung salad (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It would also be misleading to make a blanket statement that Masonry is political just because some irregular masons are, just as it would be to say that soccer is a destructive sport just because of some out of control fans causing problems outside of the game. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The political Grand Orient de France exists on a national level. French Freemasonry introduced secular philosophy within its lodges following the Revolution and in doing so ejected Catholic esotericism. This was the beginning of its involvement in politics through the elimination of the French Monarchy. It was inevitable that the belief in a Supreme Being became terminated, hence its becoming 'irregular' Freemasonry in some other Grand Lodges outside France. There is no uniformity within Freemasonry. Lung salad (talk) 00:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

"There is no uniformity within Freemasonry" is exactly why Freemasons getting involved in politics is the exception, not the rule. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

"Broadly speaking" about Freemasonry is therefore misleading since the Freemasonry in each country is a reflection of that particular country's cultural history, and because no two countries are the same, Freemasonry cannot the same everywhere. Freemasonry is a mixed-bag. Lung salad (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Which is why we must present the French example as an irregularity overall, it is only an issue with that Grand Orient, not a universal characteristic of Freemasonry. A few green M&M in a large bowl of red M&M's doesn't make the bowl a bowl of green M&Ms. Freemasonry is present in most countries, but it's only in a few European countries that Freemasons have interfered in politics. They are exceptions, not the rule. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, let's present it that way. But let's not omit this fact completely as if placing it in some hermetically-sealed capsule. BTW, Grand Lodge of England and Wales is not regarded as being distinct from politics by the French who view it as being of Protestant origin linked with the succession of Protestant Monarchs. Lung salad (talk) 00:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that the current version of the last paragraph of the Freemasonry section of the article is a result of a comprise to find statements statements that apply to both Anglo-American and Continental Freemasonry. A majority of contributors to this talk page (User:Blueboar, User:Nuujinn, User:Loremaster) in the previous debates about Freemasonry (which can be found in many section above) are opposed to Lung salad's suggestions and I still maintain my opposition to them. I will therefore revert all his edits. --Loremaster (talk) 02:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

If the word "Broadly" is going to be used, it has to be stated that Freemasonry is a mixed-bag. And not choosing biased references that support a particular editor's opinion. Wikipedia should maintain Neutral Point of View.Lung salad (talk) 06:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I've already explained in great detail in debates in section above why you are completely wrong. --Loremaster (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You have done no such thing. You want to censor the connection between Freemasonry and politics because you wrongly believe there is some connection between that and "New World Order" - for your information Grand Orient de France is only concerned with conventional politics and holds no interest in things like UFOs and 9/11 conspiracy theories. You have gone to the trouble of vandalising scholarly historical sources over this mistaken idea.Lung salad (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Blueboar has contributed to Grand Orient de France and acknowledged on this Talk Page that politics existed within Freemasonry. Lung salad (talk) 07:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Nothing in the compromise paragraph I wrote contradicts this point. --Loremaster (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no "compromise" paragraph. You have picked a biased online quotation that was ignorant of the connection between politics and Freemasonry in France. Lung salad (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the text is clearly about English-speaking Freemasonry therefore it acknowledges the connection between politics and Continental Freemasonry. However, the second paragraph of the text is about Freemasonry as a whole. This is why your edit is flawed. --Loremaster (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I've edited the last paragraph of the Freemasonry section of the article to resolve all the issues that Lung salad has raised once and for all. --Loremaster (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Using biased references for articles

The online reference used to promote the "no politics within Freemasonry" argument in this article [6] was not well written - it used Saint-Yves d'Alveydre's theory of synarchism that was representative of what can only be "pie-in-in-the-sky" idealistic form of Freemasonry embraced by Romantics and Dreamers. Yet that particular online article seemed to be completely ignorant of the Grand Orient de France and its collusion and participation within the active framework of the French Third Republic - which is a historical fact found in historical books and taught in colleges and universities. There are Wikipedia articles considered notable enough to be devoted to both Grand Orient de France and to its supplemental subject matter the Affaire Des Fiches. The proof that politics was active within Freemasonry can be found within Wikipedia itself since it has articles devoted to it. It would therefore be highly misleading to make the statement that Freemasonry has never been involved in politics in this particular article and yet have other Wikipedia articles that state the exact opposite. Lung salad (talk) 07:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is a list of areas where just regular Masonic Grand Lodges are located. There's hundreds of Grand Lodges. The Grant Orient you mention is just one of a dozen grand lodges in France. The situation you present is, at most, a twelfth of a percent, and that's extremely forgiving. It's probably more like a percent of a percent. It violates WP:GEVAL and WP:NOR to say that "Freemasonry is involved in politics" based off of the Grand Orient de France. It would be more representative to say that Americans are multibillionaires just because %1 happens to be. While it would be fine to point out exceptions, they must be pointed out as exceptions.

When one source is problematic, there are always more sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your interesting comments. Two important issues here that need to be adressed: 1) Loremaster's online quotation is off-topic because Saint-Yves d'Alveydre did not represent Mainstream French Freemasonry, he was considered - and is considered - Fringe occult material. He cannot be used within the context of "broad" statements about French Freemasonry, never mind Freemasonry in general. 2) The Grand Orient de France is one of three major French Lodges - Grand Orient de France [7], Grande Loge de France [8], Grande Loge Nationale Française [9]- and Grand Orient de France happens to be the biggest of the three. Lung salad (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

There's also Italian, Spanish and Portuguese Freemasonry - and by extension South American Freemasonry, that's all political. Lung salad (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The current version of the last paragraph doesn't argue that that there "no politics within Freemasonry" so this entire conversation is based on a straw man. --Loremaster (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Correction: The "More Broadly" paragraph quotes from an online text referring to Saint-Yves d'Alveydre - a Fringe Occultist - and not to French Freemasonry.Lung salad (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the text is clearly about English-speaking Freemasonry. However, the second paragraph of the text is about Freemasonry as a whole. This is why your correction is flawed. The issue of synarchy and Saint-Yves d'Alveydre is a sub-topic of the general topic of whether or not Freemasonry has a secret political agenda. --Loremaster (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Then it is a flawed article, if the second paragraph "is about Freemasonry as a whole", since the author could not have heard of Grand Orient de France, and this is suggested by his only mentioning synarchy and d'Alveydere and nothing else. Lung salad (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The author is Trevor W. McKeown, a researcher who works for the Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukonm, who is quite familiar with Grand Orient of France since he mentions them in several of his texts on their website. That being said, you seem unable to grasp that there is a difference between being political (such as French Freemasons were and still are to this day) and having a secret political agenda. The Grand Orient of France is involved in politics but it doesn't have a secret political agenda. Furthermore, there is a difference between being political (such as advocating for the seperation of church and state) and promoting the concept of a “Masonic government”. Lastly, Saint-Yves d'Alveydre and his concept of synarchy is being used by some anti-Masons to argue that Freemasonry has a secret political agenda, which is not same as simply being openly involved in politics like French Freemasons. --Loremaster (talk) 02:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I've edited the last paragraph of the Freemasonry section of the article to resolve all the issues that Lung salad has raised once and for all. --Loremaster (talk) 03:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Those Masonic bodies that involve themselves with political matters like Grand Orient de France have no interest in New World Order, the subject of this article, they hold no interest in UFOs and 9/11 conspiracy theories. Masonic bodies in Portugal and Spain are political in that they are sympathetic to Monarchist issues. Lung salad (talk) 10:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I've made the clarifications you have suggested --Loremaster (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Compromise paragraph

The compromise paragraph consists of a copy-and-paste quotation without quotation marks. The complete version of the article refers to the context of regular English-speaking Freemasonry in relation to the prohibition of politics. This was omitted and I have included it. Within the context of French Freemasonry and politics it only referred to synarchy and Saint-Yves d'Alveydre, who was a Fringe occultist - without referencing Grand Orient de France, that the writer of that article seems to be unaware of - but I have noticed that other articles on that American website have fired blanks before, in relation to other matters. Read for yourself. http://www.freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-masonry/anti-masonry04.html#politics Lung salad (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the text is clearly about English-speaking Freemasonry. However, the second paragraph of the text is about Freemasonry as a whole. This is why your correction is flawed. The issue of synarchy and Saint-Yves d'Alveydre is a sub-topic of the general topic of whether or not Freemasonry has a secret agenda. That being said, regardin the issue of “firing blanks”, 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.--Loremaster (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Copying-and-pasting copyrighted material from online sources without acknowledgement or producing quotation marks, flawed interpretation of what is written, Saint-Yves d'Alveydre was a Fringe occultist who never belonged to any of the major French Masonic bodies, this is not good Wikipedia editing. I can and have provided verifiable sources to consolitate reliable scholarly sources that uphold the integrity of my edits. What editors think is true does not matter. Lung salad (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Although you are correct that quotation marks should have been used, the material was always referenced and sourced. That being said, Saint-Yves d'Alveydre and his concept of synarchy is being used by some anti-Masons to argue that Freemasonry has a secret political agenda, which is not same as simply being openly involved in politics like French Freemasons. --Loremaster (talk) 02:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I've edited the last paragraph of the Freemasonry section of the article to resolve all the issues that Lung salad has raised once and for all. --Loremaster (talk) 03:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Those Masonic bodies that involve themselves with political matters like Grand Orient de France have no interest in New World Order, the subject of this article, they hold no interest in UFOs and 9/11 conspiracy theories. Masonic bodies in Portugal and Spain are political in that they are sympathetic to Monarchist issues.Lung salad (talk) 11:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I've made the clarifications you have suggested. --Loremaster (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Backing up...

Seeing the above, there is some serious conflation. France , Spain, Portugal, etc., all have multiple "branches" of Freemasonry (UGLE and "liberal", "irregular", whatever). They are all separate entities from one another. The political stance or activities of one cannot be extended to any other, because they do not act in concert, and many of these bodies are so small as to be unable to affect anything. To conflate these groups together as some sort of unified front is to create the conspiracy rather than evaluate its veracity from sources (the latter of which is the encyclopedic point). Belief in something is not necessarily going to make truth out of it, and what seems to be happening is that Lung salad is taking the position that the conspiracy definitely exists and that any political stance by a Grand body is automatically part of that conspiracy whether it makes sense or not to say so. Freemasonry exists in countries that have monarchy, democracy, and semi-presidential systems - so their political stance isn't even the same.

There's a lot of semantics, too. We really can't "broadly" speak about Freemasonry in this context; it is simply not possible. Any source that claims to do so is incorrect, or is in fact limiting itself to one branch of Freemasonry. MSJapan (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Nobody's "conflating" anything. There are Freemasonic bodies that are political and these exist in France, Italy, Spain and Portugal. Lung salad (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you miss the point... What MSJ (and, more importantly, Trevor McKeown) is trying to say is that there are multiple Freemasonic bodies in France, Italy, Spain and Portugal (and just about everywhere else). France for example, has over fifty Grand Lodges/Grand Orients... each of them claims to represent "Freemasonry" in France. The same is true in Italy, Spain and Portugal - there are multiple competing bodies in each country. Yes, some of these do take political stances, but others do not - and of the ones that do take political stances, some support liberal agendas, while others support conservative agendas.

Because Freemasonry is so splintered, and the various splinters are so diverse, it is inaccurate to talk about "Freemasonry" in broad terms. The best we can do is talk about it in specific terms (The Grand Orient de France says "X", while the Grand Lodge de France says "Y" and the Grand Lodge National de France says "Z", etc.).

That said... the conspiracy theorists who link Freemasonry to the NWO do talk about "Freemasonry" as if it were one unified group... one with a (hidden) political agenda. We do need to note this fact so that our readers understand the premise behind the theory. Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I fully understand your point about the diverse nature of Freemasonry. I think it's important to address the fact within this article that those Freemasonic bodies that hold interests in politics are banal and sober interests, and have nothing at all to do with New World Order Conspiracy, just to clarify this fact. For example, I have noticed on the conspiracy blogs how reference is still made to P2 etc Lung salad (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I think everyone is getting confused. Lung salad does not believe in Masonic conspiracy theories. He simply didn't understand that when Trevor McKeown defends Freemasonry against accusations that it has a secret political agenda he does so by arguing that not only does Freemasonry not have a secret political agenda but it doesn't have an open political agenda either because it is apolitical. Lung salad agrees with McKeown that Freemasonry doesn't have a secret political agenda but he counters that some organizations in the Continental Freemasonry do have an open political agenda. So Lung salad is right but he doesn't accept that 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.

Regarding Lung salad's suggestion that we clarify that Masonic bodies hold interests that are banal, I've now done it but I would be opposed to a lenghlty paragraph on the subject. --Loremaster (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Contemporary world order

Perhaps that the 1318 companies that have most power should be mentioned; see http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html Mention Capitalism: A Love Story; in the documentary, it was said that Goldman Sachs actually runs the US senate

Also add links to Occupy Wall Street and Indignados 91.182.109.200 (talk) 08:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you may confused about the topic of this article. 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. --Loremaster (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

interwiki

I don't have an account here. Please add Persian intewiki to the article. [[fa:نظم نوین جهانی (تئوری توطئه)]]. thanks 194.225.239.120 (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

King and Emperor

The New World Order conspiracy theory is definitely the King and Emperor of all conspiracy theories! Keraunos (talk) 11:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It has arguably become the ultimate superconspiracy theory... --Loremaster (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Then again, have you thought about who might be behind the NWO conspiracy theory? Do you really think it a coincidence that the NWO theory gained such popularity when and how it did? Just who really invented this so called "New World Order conspiracy theory", and why did they create it? Was it created to distract the gullible masses from what is really going on? Is the New World Order Conspiracy Theory itself a conspiracy? (We could call this the New World Order Conspiracy Theory (conspiracy theory)) Blueboar) (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

No I haven't thought of that because not only am I not paranoid but I don't have time to waste. Putting aside the fact that Michael Barkun explains in his book A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America why the NWO conspiracy theory gained such popularity, I share Chip Berlet's POV when he says: "Certainly there are conspiracies in history, but history is not controlled by conspiracy, it is shaped by complex forces involving economics, culture, natural events, and random action. Conspiracism blames individualized and subjective forces for economic and social problems rather than analyzing conflict in terms of systems and structures of power." --Loremaster (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Well where is the fun in that. The whole point in conspiracy theory is that there are conspiracies behind the conspiracy. Blueboar (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

So it is safe to assume that your first comment in this thread was sarcastic, right? ;) --Loremaster (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Mostly. Although there was a semi-serious point behind it. Keraunos called the NWO theory the "King and Emperor" of conspiracy theories, and you call it the "ultimate". My point was that, when it comes to conspiracy theory, it is always possible to postulate a theory that outdoes the theory you are reading about ... you can always postulate a deeper, more hidden conspiracy lying "hidden" under every conspiracy. For example: Some believe the Masons are conspiring to bring about the NWO... others go further, and believe that the Masons are simply being manipulated and controlled by the Illuminati ... but once you go down that road, you have to keep going... you have to ask: is there someone manipulating and controlling the Illuminati? (And if so, could there be someone manipulating and controlling them?) It goes on and on, conspiracy without end. There is no ultimate conspiracy theory, because someone can always postulate a theory that takes the "ultimate" a step further. Blueboar (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

See, I was thinking it was the ultimate CT because it's been around (in one form or another) for centuries. I can't think of any other CTs that have managed to persevere for such a long time. (Oh, and a quick note to the Jews/Aliens/Sea Monkeys/Whomever it is working to control the world -- you've been at it for centuries, and yet you still seem to have gotten no further than Pinkie and the Brain ever did. Seems to me that the conspirators are quite incompetent!)JoelWhy (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I see your point. It's kind of like the infinite regression problem of say, intelligent design or creationism, of "Who designed the designer? Who created the creator?" I still consider the NWO CT to be the "ultimate" superconspiracy theory in that, although it takes on many versions, each of which varies in depth, it is the most prominent theory that strings together just about every single event conspiracy theory that has ever been and will ever be postulated.

These days, it's quite difficult to be a 9/11 truther without also being a chemtrailer, fluorider, FEMA concentration camp'er, and ultimately a NWO conspiracy theorist (I'm not sure where, or whether, to place 2012'ers). The points of overlap where controversy arises among NWO conspiracy theorists are issues like, who the conspirators are (illuminati? shape-shifting reptilian humanoids? freemasons? Rockefeller family/House Rothschild? satan?), whether millennialist or not, etc. There are many atheist or otherwise secular conspiracists who don't accept any of the religious eschatologies that have been overlapped with a postulated NWO, but who replace them with the hollow-Earth-dwelling shape-shifting reptilian humanoids or at least alleged elite bloodlines.

This subject is so multifaceted, and I think that many of the conspiracists have no idea that so many iterations of the NWO conspiracy theory exist... I really think of it as a conspiracy theory set. It's difficult when say, an NWO conspiracism apologist arrives and suggests a number of edits to this article that would seek to water down the alien stuff (which they see as nonsensical), beef up the Christian millennialism (which they see as sensical), etc. (In other words, minimize one version and promote another version of the NWO conspiracy theory.) I'll never forget the plethora of anonymous editors Loremaster has had to explain to that this article, while it may not represent the theory as seen by any single conspiracist, has to do the job of explaining what conspiracists overall have claimed. It amazes me that one conspiracist will read the article, discount a chunk or two of it as "outlandish" but then go on not recognizing their own outlandish beliefs. Actually, I should say it amuses me. After having just finished Michael Shermer's latest book The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies—How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths, I don't find it all that surprising. I do sometimes wonder, although I don't believe in conspiracy theories, why I find them so fascinating. I guess it's because of how prominent they are in our political and socioeconomic discourse today. Quite frankly, the conspiracy theory article has been a bit neglected as of late - there's some yet-unresolved issues on the talk page I believe, and the article overall could use some work. I've just not had the mental resilience to tackle such a contentious article in while. John Shandy` • talk 18:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar, you since to not have noticed and understood that I called NWO the ultimate superconspiracy theory rather the ultimate conspiracy theory... --Loremaster (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

John Shandy, are you suggesting "911 truthers" are not conspiracy theorists? Aside from the non-vociferous faction which asserts that perhaps the government is holding back some information about what it knew beforehand, I don't think a more perfect example exists of conspiracy theory.

That was an interesting point about how many camps seem to adopt this issue and mold it to be their own. Some believe it's aliens, others the Jews, still others Freemasons. It's the one side fits all universal conspiracy theory. Pour a little on the ground, make water on it, add a few of your personal beliefs, and bam! Instant conspiracy to use to spread fear and loathing among your peers. It all revolves around someone wants to rule the whole world and while it almost seems absurd in terms of size and scope, historical precedent exists of figures trying to and in some cases essentially doing just that, so the fears are not so ridiculous in some peoples' minds.Batvette (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No, that isn't what I am suggesting. I see how my phrasing could've mistakenly given that impression. My point is that (in my experiences at least), it's difficult to come across a 9/11 truther who is only a 9/11 truther and not also an NWO conspiracy theorist (to some degree, and with varied views on who the alleged conspirators are, etc.). Almost every 9/11 truther I have encountered also holds fringe beliefs about a whole range of issues, including the aforementioned examples such as chemtrails and FEMA concentration camps. I think that the concern over global and far-reaching malfeasance is a genuine one; what's problematic is using such concerns to derive unfounded conclusions about the world which are either (a) not empirically supported with data or other hard evidence (with strong judicial or scientific standards for what constitutes evidence) or (b) unfalsifiable, which not only makes claims bizarre and unreasonable, but also useless because they cannot be tested and are asserted absent of scrutiny. There are legitimate and robust means of testing claims, sorting truths from falsehoods, overcoming political shortcomings, corruption, and oppression, overcoming economic challenges, and addressing real rather than imagined problems. John Shandy` • talk 06:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed that if a person believes in one conspiracy theory, they generally believe in many others. You aren't likely to find a person who believes the moon landing was a hoax, who doesn't also believe in various other well-known CTs. There are some exceptions; for example, I think a lot of people who believe JFK was assassinated as part of a conspiracy aren't necessarily believers in many other CTs. My hunch is that they simply haven't looked into the history of the event and since belief in this CT is so widespread (not to mention, maybe they saw the Oliver Stone movie) they just assume there was a conspiracy to assassinate the president. JoelWhy (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you all (re-)read this article: [Michael Barkun on] Old Conspiracies, New Beliefs. --Loremaster (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

John Shandy- okay indeed, I think that is what motivates their belief in 911 conspiracies anyway, they have preexisting beliefs and 911 nestles nicely with them. Some experts claim 911 CT's are actually strong anti war advocates who believe if they convince people 911 was not done by Islamic militants they can discredit all justifications for the wars of that decade that followed. There may be some truth to that but I think it's a lot more sordid than simply being against wars. I respect those who simply state the whole truth is not being told, there's secrets the government is keeping, because that is certainly true but it's more to keep scrutiny away from simple incompetence or negligence. The more hardcore, particularly controlled demolition CT's, I hold in utter contempt as they are usually as dishonest, either intellectually or willfully, about obfuscating facts as the villains in their head they believe are behind this. The phrase "ask questions... recognize answers" is so fitting. Engaging them in meaningful discussion is impossible, you show them evidence a talking point is fallacious, they don't even acknowledge it. Though there's that "conspiracy within a conspiracy" thing blueboar spoke of, since their beliefs are just so crazy you can't believe they have endured. Is it possible those who may have some criminal liability from just negligence- for instance the fireproofing on the towers was both badly applied initially and allowed to deteriorate- would they surround the whole thing with so much stupidity that any serious demands by the public for inquiry would completely turn off objective and intelligent people when they saw the company they'd be keeping? Or do enough CT's exist they wouldn't need to actively foment their silliness? Batvette (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The sanest thing Batvette has ever said on this talk page. I'm actually impressed. :o --Loremaster (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion forum but a place to discuss how to improve the article. None of the above has any place on this page. Please do not add any more comments like the above in this section. There are plenty of forums where this topic can be freely discussed. Thank you. 82.43.199.163 (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Not a forum. WP:NOTAFORUM--Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Remove "unfounded" from the following sentence as POV

During the Red Scare of 1947–1957, agitators of the American secular and Christian right, influenced by the work of Canadian conspiracy theorist William Guy Carr, increasingly embraced and spread unfounded fears of Freemasons, Illuminati, and Jews being the driving force behind an "international communist conspiracy".

The above should be rewritten without the word "unfounded". I am not arguing that the fears are founded or unfounded, but that Wikipedia is not a place to declare it. Doing so contravenes Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view and Wikipedia:No_original_research. Try to be objective about this rather than what you strongly believe to be true. 82.43.199.163 (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

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. If reliable sources on a topic are critically positive or negative, then Wikipedia should accurately reflect this viewpoint. --Loremaster (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If someone feared that the Boy scouts are really working to create an army of Satanist lesbians, those fears, having no basis in reality, are unfounded. As Loremaster explained, if reliable sources report that such fears are unfounded and have no basis in reality, then Wikipedia is free to call those fears unfounded, and actually should. "Neutral" does not mean "equal treatment for all views." Ian.thomson (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Assertions or theories can be unfounded. Fears and other emotions really cannot be. I support removal of that word -- and honestly, would any sane reader interpret a generic fear of Freemasons, Jews, and Illuminati (which don't exist) as rational, especially given the facts as presented in the article? SamuelRiv (talk) 08:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "unfounded fears" seems to be a pretty common one in reliable sources. Fears can be unfounded in the sense that they have no basis in reality. I don't see a problem with the word, and the IP's objection isn't that they can't be unfounded but that he doesn't think we should use it. Dougweller (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2012 (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)

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)

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 Wikipedia: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)

How it conspiracy when all the presidents of the US talk about "new world order"? Wikipedia is becoming part of it, i suppose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spydercanopus (talk • contribs) 07:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

New_world_order_(politics). Regards SK (talk) 07:40, 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)

"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 Wikipedia 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)

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)

/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 Wikipedia, 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)

The Last Will and Testament of Cecil John Rhodes

This article is false in it's assertions regarding Cecil Rhodes.

Per WP:V, The Last Will and Testament of Cecil John Rhodes is here for verification: [10]

It states (p. 73): "What an awful thought it is that if we had not lost America, or if even now we could arrange with the present members of the United States Assembly and our House of Commons, the peace of the world is secured for all eternity. We could hold federal parliament five years at Washington and five at London. The only thing feasible to carry this idea out is A secret one (society) gradually absorbing the wealth of the world to be devoted to such an object. There is Hirsch with twenty millions, very soon to cross the unknown border, and struggling in the dark to know what to do with his money; and so one might go on ad infinitum."

He also states (p. 74): "It would have been better for Europe if Napoleon had carried out his idea of Universal Monarchy; he might have succeeded if he had hit on the idea of granting self government to the component parts. Still, I will own tradition, race, and diverse languages acted against his dream; all these do not exist as to the present English speaking world, and apart from this union is the sacred duty of taking the responsibility of the still uncivilized parts of the world. The trial of these countries who have been found wanting---such as Portugal, Persia, even Spain---and the judgment that they must depart, and of course, the whole of the South American republics. "

He continues: "What a scope and what a horizon of work for the next two centuries, the best energies of the best people in the world; perfectly feasible, but needing an organization, for it is impossible for one human atom to contemplate anything, Much less such an idea requiring the devotion of the best souls of the next 200 years. There are three essentials--- (1) The plan duly weighed and agreed to (2) The first organization (3) The seizure of the wealth necessary."

This is also noted in the NYT: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F00811FB395412738DDDA00894DC405B828CF1D3 Pottinger's cats (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

proposed edits to 'further reading', can't do it myself

I have attempted to edit the 'further reading' area, but still cannot (i believe i was 'autoconfirmed' only, which seems to be the problem).

I propose starting the 'further reading' section with the sub-title "The following is a list of non-self-published non-fiction books that critically analyze New World Order conspiracy theories", followed by a reading list as follows (in part borrowed from above in this talk page) -

-Barkun, Michael: Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America, University of California Press, 2003. -Coward, Barry, ed. (2004). Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theory in Early Modern Europe: From the Waldensians to the -French Revolution. Ashgate Publishing. ISBN 0-7546-3564-3. -Fenster, Mark: Conspiracy Theory. Secrecy and Power in American Culture, Minneapolis 2008 -Goldberg, Robert Alan: Enemy Within. The Culture of Conspiracy in Modern America, New Haven, London 2001 -Knight, Peter: Conspiracy Theories in American History. An Encyclopedia, Santa Barbara, Denver, Oxford 2003 -Parish, Jane (ed.): The Age of Anxiety. Conspiracy Theory and the Human Sciences, Oxford 2001 -West, Harry G & Sanders, Todd (eds.): Transparency and Conspiracy. Ethnographies of Suspicion in the New World Order, Durham and London 2003

i also propose changing the sub-title of "The following is a list of non-self-published non-fiction books that discuss New World Order conspiracy theories" to "The following is a list of non-self-published non-fiction books that assert the existence of various New World Order conspiracy theories", which should be followed by the list of books currently found into the 'further reading' section.

the last thing i am proposing is that the last book listed, by Whitemiller, be removed, as it is a book of axioms and has nothing directly to do with new world order conspiracy theories. Joe everynameistoosimilar (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I would oppose your proposed change of sub-title. We can not limit our "further reading" only to books that "assert the existence" of the theories... that would be POV... we also need to include books that attempt to debunk the theories, as well as those that neutrally discuss the theories (without drawing a conclusion about them). Blueboar (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I ask for the inclusion of the Cyprus bail out details where they are being forced to accept a haircut from Germany and EU and IMF banks as the unprecedented first sign of the NWO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.127.244 (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I ask for reliable sources making this connection. SK (talk) 14:40, 23 March 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 Wikipedia. (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 Wikipedia.)

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 Wikipedia's NPOV. If not, you might as well start accepting Ann Coulter's sourced opinions on various topics as useful in formulating Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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)

This has to be one of the most blatant POV articles I've ever seen on Wikipedia. I came to this page hoping to find information, but found an anti-conservative rant page instead. The "History of the Term" section sounds like it came straight from The Daily Kos or Media Matters DrHenley (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It's something of a shame that the comment here about the obvious bias of the article employed an IP address rather than a WikiPedia user handle since he or she is, I must agree, absolutely correct. the article fails fairly badly at being NPOV and is overwhelmingly biased upon the supposition (however appropriate) that there is no legitimacy behind the evidence indicating that there is indeed a "New World Order" afoot since, well, there is. :)

The core issue is that the corporate drive to commit a "New World Order" is not a conspiracy insofar as the corporate take-over of governmental institutions and the overall control of world economies for the financial benefit of a few at the detriment of the world's teeming masses is concerned. The imposition of a "New World Order" is obvious yet it's not a conspiracy, ergo the defacto supposition that the "New World Order" is a conspiracy theory fails on its face.

If I may, I would like to add that I am a Hume-class Skeptic, I run The Skeptic Tank and have for many decades, even before the old DARPA Net became the Internet, and I have publications in numerous skeptical newsletters, magazines, and started the compilation of the scientific debunking of claims of the paranormal even before SCICOP was founded. I mention it to avoid getting labeled and dismissed as a wide-eyed lunatic arguing without reason. Rather I'm finding that the main Wikipeida on the New World Order as well as this article covering the supposed "conspiracy theory" about the New World Order to be lacking in NPOV and fraught with logical fallacies and what is known as selection bias in scientific circles.

Obviously the core of corporate dominance efforts which form the basis of the actual "New World Order" exists, it's an on-going effort, but equally obviously there is a great deal of abject lunacy in the tack-on unevidenced, untestable beliefs that are also associated and accumulating under the banner of the "New World Order." So in point of fact one can not dismiss the NWO as a conspiracy theory, instead one must address each aspect of claims concerning the New World Order each on their own merits.

Some will be factual and verified, most will be untestable, many will be obvious nonsense. So I agree fully with the OP here, the article is not NPOV and it is overwhelmingly biased. Damotclese (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Bias

I just wanted to point out that this article is very anti right wing and presents Rightists as the only people who believe in conspiracy theories. I've spent most of my life among the far left and many of them also believe in such things sharing the idea with the right. There must be added more left wing point of view to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.57.129 (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The article is a reflection of the sources it cites. If there are sources you're aware of that support what you'd like to see in the article, by all means share and introduce them. I forget which source, it's either a Chip Berlet or Michael Barkun source, but there's one that covers how people on the left have been wooed into accepting right-wing conspiracy theories. So I don't think it's so much that people on the left can't or don't hold conspiracist views, but that the conspiracy theories they believe originate from the right, or at least have some right-wing underpinnings. But as for bias, Wikipedia's place is not to offer balance or eliminate bias if that bias actually derives from the prevailing literature (the references, essentially). Wikipedia should channel the views of the authors of the cited sources, and should only seek to remove editor bias. Please see WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE for further detail. I've known a few left-leaning individuals who believed in conspiracy theories, but do you have any sources that you think address the problem you perceive with the article? John Shandy` • talk 01:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the article needs to be rounded out better. Suitable references supporting the core corporate behaviors that are part of the legitimate "New World Order" should be added, including some details about the non-police entity and non-elected entity Interpol which is increasingly a tool of the corporate New World Order.

What we're finding is that people who believe the outrageous claims being lumped under the umbrella term get their information from unreliable sources and would be dismissive of all evidence which debunks said beliefs just as much as people who employ skepticism and critical thought toward the examination and debunking of claims are also highly biased against supportive evidence which contradicts their own preconceived notions.

One could list pros and cons in support of and in debunking of the endless claims being applied under the banner "New World Order" until every damn page on the Internetz is referenced and in the end is falls to belief. Posting references in support of aspects of the supposed conspiracy won't do anything to alleviate the failed NPOV in the article since, well, human nature is what it is. Damotclese (talk) 01:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky

Chomsky is not a conspiracy theorist, and when he talks about the emergence of post-Cold War 'new world order' with reference to 1990s 'humanitarian interventions' he is clearly and explicitly referencing George Bush Senior's comments to the same effect. If nothing else, he makes no claims about secret or invisible cabals, no claims about conspirators as such (that is, individuals and groups deliberately working together to deceive and/or otherwise exploit or harm populations). Instead, he points to clear structural biases that are supported by any number of political economic statistical analyses. He is criticising the exercise of US-power in what many respected academics, politicians, theorists and analysts of international relations were calling (at the time Chomsky was writing about this) a 'unipolar' international order, following the collapse of the Soviet Union. This is very different from proposing a secretive and carefully planned, intentional and organised, 'conspiracy' of the sort implied by the term 'New World Order' as it is used by conspiracy theorists. I can't remove the section on Chomsky because the article is locked, but if this is what passes for 'information' on a major Wikipedia article, I am starting to see why many academics remain so sceptical about the potential for this encyclopaedia to improve. In fact, the entire section above the Chomsky part is nonsense too! 'Marxists' never use the term 'superclass', and they don't speak of 'plutocracy'! Marxism is a vast and internally diverse set of beliefs and critical social scientific methods, but if you are going to make claims about what Marxists believe, at least get them in the right ballpark. Again, Marxists are absolutely not 'conspiracy' theorists, since (at least in its 'classical' articulations) the theory rests upon the principle that 'ideology' can obscure class divisions and class interests - the ruling class need not be 'conspiring', intentionally exploiting the proletariat, it is the economic base of society (social structure) that makes this happen, not the freewill or agency of individual or group 'conspirators'. It looks as though the entire section is based on someone's high school essay. Please delete it!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.225.30.130 (talk • contribs)

The citation is written by the editorial board for the World Socialist Web Site, and I can find no evidence that Chomsky is a member of the board. Furthermore, though it might be the kind of site I might read on occasion, I must admit that WSWS is the left-wing equivalent of Glennbeck.com, and so not a reliable source. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Ian's removal of the Chomsky paragraph. As for the preceding paragraph about Marxists, I quite agree with user 134.225.30.130 and I think perhaps at the very least, we need to attribute those views to the Party for Socialism and Liberation, which is the source cited by that paragraph. I don't know how much of a reliable source the PLS is on Marxism, but attributing the paragraph to their party's view may at least help the reader take into consideration that the view is from PLSweb.org. I invite user 134.225.30.130 to be mindful that this article does not necessarily, in its entirety, represent Wikipedia's finest work. It is also the case that many hands have passed through, shaping and molding this particular article, and not always for the better. But with time and thanks to diligent reading and reviewing such as what you have done in raising these concerns, the article grows ever stronger. Don't give up on it just yet. John Shandy` • talk 16:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is this called a "conspiracy theory"?

I'm not really sure why the One World Order is called a conspiracy theory. There is clear evidence that that US State Department is in favor of disarming everyone except for a United Nations Peace Force. This was published in DEPARTMENT OF STATE PUBLICATION 7277, released September 1961. Here is a copy of the publication.

Since the US State Department is in favor of disarming everyone except for the United Nations, isn't that the key element of a New World Order?

I think it's unfair and biased that this article does not reference any of the material supporting the One Word Order, such as DEPARTMENT OF STATE PUBLICATION 7277, or any of the other material listed in this article. Please give all the facts, not just the ones that leftists prefer.

We call it a "conspiracy theory" because conspiracy theorists like yourself point to this nonsense as evidence that it's real. JoelWhy?(talk) 13:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

We call it a "conspiracy theory" because it is a theory that states that a conspiracy is occurring (or has occurred). That is the definition of the term "conspiracy theory". Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

@JoelWhy, The "nonsense as evidence" is your personal subjective opinion, therefore you have no argument to claim the justification for this label. Xowets (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Re:DOS pub 7277... could you explain who says it supports the NWO theory? We are not going to mention it because some anonymous guy with an IP address says it does... we need to be able to point to at least a few prominent theorists who make the claim. Blueboar (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

There is allot of bullocks about conspiracy theories, but ... type this in google:

site:europa.eu "new world order" 

and you will get 86.500 results where the term NWO is literally used in speeches and texts on the official EU webpage europa.eu i'm not saying NWO is a conspiracy ment to kill 90% of the world population and that is ruled by reptilians (lol)... It is probably something like G8 or G20 but bigger and comparable to the EU (as EU government is already more powerfull/has more autorithy then federal government. i guess EU can be called New European Order and you'll get the point, i think NWO might be the same but on a global scale.) 109.131.70.216 (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The term "New World Order," as used in political speeches, etc, tends to mean something quite different than the NWO conspiracy theory JoelWhy?(talk) 15:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

@JoelWhy, You are wrong, either you are severly uninformed about this subject or you are a paid shill to infiltrate this article and divide it's honest editor, you have no credibility to justify general appearance of this article by using subjective opinion that you think the speeches talk about something else. As a matter of fact, this is a well known response from gatekeepers alike, a very poor excuse. Xowets (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

That's what I said above also. :) There is undeniably an effort by corporate entities to impose a "New World Order" globally, however it's not a conspiracy, it's above-ground and observed. At the same time there are endless unevidenced claims being made under the banner of the New World Order which is why the whole arena is called a "conspiracy theory."

There's some irony in this. The multinational corporate traitors and war criminals who owe no allegiance to any country are undeniably motivated in their efforts to acquire and consolidate wealth as a means unto itself, seizing the world's wealth and resources for the benefit of a miniscule few to the detriment of the 99% of the rest of the world's populace, yet after George Bush (the elder) employed the term in a press release, globally we started seeing actual conspiracy theories being heaped upon the term "New World Order" inappropriately.

Each individual claim issued under the banner of the New World Order must be evaluated on their own merits, one can not claim that the NWO is a conspiracy theory any more than one can claim it's not. Every claim must stand on its own, an umbrella term can't and should not be used to debunk an entire slew of claims.

Thus the irony: Who benefits best from the mud tossed in to the New World Order waters by the addition of endless outrageous claims about what the NWO is doing than the corporate entities committing their New World Order against us in the first place? :) It's one reason why this article failed to be NPOV and is highly biased. It lumps all the lunatic fringe beliefs and claims under the single banner where it becomes easy to dismiss the whole glut rather than evaluate each individual claim on its own. Damotclese (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 May 2013

The New World Order cannot be called a conspiracy theory anymore as Joe Biden has publicly announced that the U.S. Government is involved in forming a New World Order.

Rex Crouch (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: The term "New World Order" in the context of a political speech generally means something very different from the conspiracy theory discussed in this article. --ElHef (Meep?) 19:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You have no basis to claim it means something else, there is no "generally" that I know of in the informed ranks, these types of classic excuses are used by gatekeepers, or you may just be uninformed, the appearance of this article is not decided by people who provide baseless "popular consensus" for their justification. As a matter of fact, the major powers in the world automatically have by common sense a default to be a prime suspect, their historic track record supports that, most mainline people rely on hard evidence, which there is many, but unreported, and takes personal research and analysis, effort that takes time, however, these people don't understand circumstantial evidence which is the major part of these conspiracy theories, some of the circumstantial evidence is supported by hard facts as well.Xowets (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

See New world order (politics). This is what ElHef and JoelWhy? were each referring to, which is quite different indeed from the conspiracy theory which this article is about. You would do well to assume good faith and be civil, as your insinuations that JoelWhy is a paid shill are not in keeping with the atmosphere of the Wikipedia community and they will not gain you any ground in debate. At Wikipedia, only reliable sources and their proper usage are what can turn an article on its head. John Shandy` • talk 01:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

NWO Proofs

These guys can provides lots of solid proofs and facts :-

- Jesse Ventura with his program (conspiracy theory). - Alex Jones. - David Icke. -...ETC

Those names must be mentioned in the article. We must provides facts for the world to see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhalawan (talk • contribs) 10:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

This conspiratist source refers to the UN, but illustrates a normative global-conspiracy-resistment ideology: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTE-3Fl7wgg 173.14.238.118 (talk) 04:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I invite you to consider launching a free blog at blogspot.com or wordpress.com, where you may express your... thoughts... free from Wikipedia's quality constraints. John Shandy` • talk 17:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Venture is a violently insane loon whose fraudulent lies on television and radio have been and continue to be repeatedly exposed and debunked.

Jones is a violently insane NRA gunloon extremist with serious mental problems who spews utterly insane lunatic notions to the point where one could ask his opinion about what the time of day is and be rewarded with a racist lunatic rant about Obama and goats -- or something equally unhinged.

Icke is one of the more prolific mental cases out there who has been spewing unending lunacy about Roswell flying saucers and fluoride in the water and Baby Jesus along knows what all.

Point being, before a legitimate reference can be applied to the article, one must locate a legitimate reference. If someone goes off spewing delusional quotes by such luminous right wing lunatics as these three, that only further adds to the fact that belief in the extreme, unfounded aspects of the New World Order is an unhinged conspiracy theory. Damotclese (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Note that our job is not to "prove" (nor "debunk") the various theories, our job is to merely to report (in an encyclopedic tone) what the theories are, and what reliable sources say about them. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

There is truth in that, yes. Also it seems these days everything is part of the New World Order conspiracy. Even notable loons like Hal Lindsey has been revitalizing his amusingly loopy "Satanism!" books as part of the current NWO conspiracy, so we find greatly-debunked-for-decades notions climbing aboard. It's not as if all this stuff has not been debunked already endlessly anyway. Damotclese (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The idea that Jesse Ventura, Alex Jones and David Icke would be considered reliable sources on the subject of the "New World Order" is just preposterous. Everyone knows -- or should know -- that Voopmeister, my talking dog, is absolutely the best, reliable source on this subject.

Unfortunately, just can't seem to get him to talk to me. Famspear (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Nah... talking to you would not be enough for Wikipedia... He has to get his views published. Blueboar (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Good point. And Voopmeister just doesn't have the attention span needed to write a scholarly article that someone would publish. But I'm sure he knows everthing there is to know about the New World Order..... (sigh....) .... What a waste of a dog's life! Here boy! Treat!!???! Good doggie! Famspear (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb33Xv73Acg&list=PLC0D55BF59624C756 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.237.209 (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Some merging with New world order (politics)

I believe there needs to be some merging of facts from this section to the New world order (politics)#Criticism/New world order (politics)#Public_reaction, as much of what has been termed as "conspiracy theory" seems to be one sided, where as much of it is actually criticism of the New word order (politics) as well as being an alarming sight to the many commentators who not only criticize but warn and rebuke the concept. Faro0485 (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't follow. Can you provide a couple of specific examples to clarify? Thanks! JoelWhy?(talk) 19:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb33Xv73Acg&list=PLC0D55BF59624C756 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.237.209 (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure watching this video just made me a little dumber. JoelWhy?(talk) 13:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Freemasonry

This sentence, "Freemasonry is one of the world's oldest secular [sic] fraternal organizations, which arose in late 16th- to early 17th-century Britain.", is not entirely accurate since no Anglo-American Grand Lodge will admit atheists or agnostics to membership, and therefore cannot be described as "secular." From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasons, "[Anglo-American:] Requires its members to express a belief in God as a condition of membership (although it does not specify what form that belief should take). A regular lodge must have an open volume of scripture when it is in session." Autodidact1 (talk) 12:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You may have a point there, AD. Not sure whether you can use the term "secular" in this context where no particular religious beliefs are required other than a belief in some form of higher-power. Presumably, a Hindu could join, but not an atheist, right? If that's the case, is there a definition of "secular" that fits? Or, does that automatically contradict the term in all its uses? I'm really not sure. Would "quasi-secular" be more appropriate? JoelWhy?(talk) 14:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2013

I would humbly ask you to include the following article in your page. This article is a United Nations document which details the use of technology which can change the weather. It's not a conspiracy theory but an actual fact document signed by the UN in 1977. If the New World Order is nothing to worry about and only a conspiracy theory then why would the United Nations see fit to include such an article in their archives. This technology has been in use and is being tested even today (birds falling out of the sky, hundreds of thousands of marine life washing up dead on shores around the world, freak weather conditions etc.). The technology relates to the use of electrical frequencies and pulses to affect life and the weather on this planet.

Here is the link to the actual document held in the ICRC archives and I think it deserves a mention in your article:

[11]

Also, the following video on Youtube illustrates some of the uses of this technology (although there are many more videos explaining the same thing - this one is more pertinent because of the credentials of the reporter)

[12]

Thank you for taking the time to read my request.

Cazpolar (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Should the New World Order really be protected (unable to edit) as a "Conspiracy Theory" on Wikipedia?

Constitutionally Demo Repub (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Who or what entity, body, or testimony, has declared the NWO officially a "conspiracy theory"?

In all seriousness, is this because some wrestlers in the 90s and 2000s had a gang named "NWO"? Could it be because of constant associations with childishness and crazyness, those who are aware of the plans and implications of possible NWO mobilization are silenced in their quest for at the very least some clarity/transparency and honest discussion?

What needs to be done, in my honest opinion, (as a member who has donated to wikipedia on the sole reason that it is a great service for the world - to put it shortly) is that the moderators of wikipedia need to ask us how much evidence those who are interested in this subject must compile in order to have the NWO that has been announced in full force in the 90s NOT be deemed a "conspiracy theory" for the benefit of mankind.

It could be similar to the analogy of wikipedia telling us that the hacker group "Anonymous" is a just a "conspiracy theory" or a "myth" despite the very same group having meetings, referencing and publicizing their plans, taking steps toward their goals in sight of the public, etc. I'm not expressing a taste or distaste for the hacker group Anonymous, but you have to be living under a rock if you think this group is "just a myth", the same way you must be living under a rock or simply ignorant of the information if you believe that the "New World Order" is simply "just a conspiracy theory".

Despite groups like the "Council on Foreign Relation's" practical takeover of American politics since before the 40s, despite global elitists funding BOTH sides of the world wars, and despite these connections relating to the NWO-promoters in 1990 such as George H.W. Bush who made their plans evident in his new world order speech. Other established groups since then, like the "Project for a New American Century", have publicized REAL works that describe their plans in full for (violent if necessary / or gradual), New World Order/one world government/UN takeover. The elitists on the other side such as Al Gore, and other environmentalists, Democrats OR Republicans push the (global elitist funded) UN mandated "Agenda 21" plans which in essence diminish sovereignty and market capabilities and transfer those capabilities from the people and their nations to the global elite. How many publications and testimonies by these controlling global elite where they propose... “We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.” -James Paul Warburg, whose family co-founded the Federal Reserve – while speaking before the United States Senate, February 17, 1950

Is the Bohemian Grove, Bilderberg group, Trilateral commission, CFR, CNP, UN, and other groups really just "innocent clubs where likeminded people get together" or are they something more than that? Are they engines to which a global elite can organize its soon-to-be-mobilized plans for NWO? Are they engines in which figures with vast amounts of decision-making-power can manipulate the global stage of events behind the scenes?

So the question still begs to be asked once more, How much spot-on evidence must the community compile to have the misleading title renamed and not be called just a "conspiracy theory"? Constitutionally Demo Repub (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Constitutionally Demo Repub (talk • contribs) 18:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

NOT DONE - Wikipeida is not a soap box. Also, per WP:NOR Wikipedia does not allow the use of Primary sources to "prove" information. What you would need to do is find a reliable secondary source that comments on the primary UN Document and makes all the connections you are making. As for not calling the NWO a conspiracy theory... um... when someone connects the dots and theorizes that a conspiracy exists, that theory is by definition "a conspiracy theory". Blueboar (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

But nobody is "theorizing" anything anymore, and that was the purpose of my supposed "soapbox" rant... This is all blatantly evident now. You're supposed "connecting the dots" is in actuality just paying attention to when these globally enabled players act and actually WHAT they do. I am in the process of compiling timelines, data, interviews, legislations, etc.. and I'm sure others are too. Constitutionally Demo Repub (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You need to read WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR. You misunderstand how our articles are developed. This is very different from writing an essay where you build up an argument from sources such as the one you suggest. Dougweller (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: Due to a now-fixed formatting error, I think the edit requests from Cazpolar and Constitutionally Demo Repub were conflated. Nevertheless, the comments from Blueboar and Dougweller are relevant to both.

Sorry Cazpolar and Constitutionally Demo Repub, but Blueboar and Dougweller are correct, and I've closed this edit request. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Clearly not neutral, regardless of claims

This article is anything but neutral, which anyone with a few neurons to rub together can see. There's an obvious bias in favor of both socialism and marxism, while the featured proponents of the new world order conspiracy theories are the most loony that can be found (e.g., believers in religious Armageddon or reptilian overlords). I'm sure this sort of self-congratulatory pseudo-intellectual masturbation is immensely satisfying to a few armchair-socialists who spend most of their free time shouting their vacuous blatherings in echo chambers like Reddit, but it's a disgrace to Wikipedia - and anyone who prides themselves on an actual neutral stance - to allow this sort of crap to stand.

Either rewrite the article to reflect an actual neutral stance instead of your thinly-veiled political views, or have the balls to call a spade a spade. Your bias here is neither witty nor well-written, regardless of what you told yourself when you approved this drivel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.186.0.86 (talk) 05:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The goal of this article is not to "prove" or "debunk" the various conspiracy theories that are lumped together under the banner of NWO... the goal is to neutrally explain a) what those theories are (ie what proponents of a theory say), and b) what others say about the theories (ie what critics of the theory say about it). Note that our WP:Neutral point of view policy explicitly says that we should not treat all theories (and criticisms) the same... instead we are to them DUE WEIGHT, which means that we give some theories and criticsims more space (and others less space... or even no space at all) in accordance with the amount that they are discussed by the sources.

As loony as some of the theories may be, the ones we spend the most time on are those that are the most prevalent... and the most discussed by critics. Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You completely avoided the criticism, which doesn't surprise me. This article is heavily biased and clearly has a political agenda not at all rooted in a scientific approach. You should be referencing empirical studies by accredited sociologists and psychologists, not left-wing hard-core marxists whose views on the subject aren't any more news-worthy than the average Joe on the street, and whose opinions on the topic aren't relevant in any way, shape or form. This article is the very definition of why university professors ban students from referencing Wikipedia, and even caution against using sources on anything other than the most mundane of subjects. If you're having difficulty grasping why the article is so horribly bad, I suggest who go to www.dictionary.com and look up the word "empirical". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.186.0.86 (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

We would love to be able to cite studies by accredited sociologists and psychologists discussing the various NWO conspiracy theories... the problem is with finding them. If you know of any... please let us know. Blueboar (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm only seeing one person with a political agenda, and it isn't any of the authors of this page. As long as information can be cited with a verifiable, reliable source and is done in a manner that Blueboar stated above, it can be here. If there are things missing, they can certainly be added. 331dot (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

True, and the IP may be confused if they aren't actually what they appear to be, a conspiracy theorist. This is an article on the conspiracy theory, we have a separate article on New world order (politics). Dougweller (talk) 06:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

There's zero in the way of specific, legitimate criticisms. Until specific examples of incorrect/unreferenced information is provided, specific information that is missing, etc, there's no reason to waste time engaging in this debate. All the editors here understand that topics such as these are always going to attract a fair number of trolls and cranks. (Not saying the OP fits either of these labels; but, unless specifics criticisms are levied, there's really nothing to discuss.) JoelWhy?(talk) 12:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? You present the views of the extreme fringe - two of which I mentioned, the Armageddon and reptilian overlord loons - as if they were fairly representative of the believers in NWO as a whole. That's like offering up the Branch Davidians as representatives of Christianity; it's deliberately misleading. Also, what the fuck does Marxism have to do with anything? The opinions of marxists on this topic are of no more relevance than those of plumbers or basket-weavers. Being a marxist makes no one on an expert on this topic (or any other, for that matter), and is clearly the work of some hard-left nutjob who's using this article as a vehicle to express his own political views. Note all of these:

"The activities of conspiracy theorists (talk radio shows, books, websites, documentary videos, conferences, etc.) unwittingly draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from serious criticism and activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background. 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"

"Marxists, such as the members of the U.S. Party for Socialism and Liberation, reject conspiracy theories in general and New World Order conspiracism in particular because it produces false consciousness and cultism"

"Marxists conclude that the real solution is something right-wing populist conspiracy theorists would never advocate or contemplate: democratic socialism"

are nothing more than the rants of some college kid who wants to promote his own hard-left opinions as credible criticisms of NWO, which they clearly are not in any way, shape or form. These paragraphs have absolutely no place whatsoever in an article on NWO and very clearly violate several painfully obvious guidelines on writing articles for Wikipedia.

I mistakenly thought you'd be able to see this for yourself as the article is right in front of you and this sophomoric college-kid horseshit stands out like the steaming turd it so clearly is. Now I've corrected that mistake by providing you with several specific examples (although there are more throughout the article, these are the worst) of what makes this article a disgrace. Wikipedia is not the place to push your own political views, and whoever thought they were being clever in adding this crap needs a good bitch-slapping; it's idiots like these who make so many articles, which might otherwise be of some value, a joke, and why students everywhere are cautioned to take what's written in Wikipedia with a huge grain of salt.

To clarify, I'm not a conspiracy theorist of any sort; I don't believe that anything beyond a small group is capable of true conspiracy, especially given the numerous historical and contemporary examples of the lack of foresight, caution, and just plain intelligence of those powerful enough to pull it off. To put it bluntly, the people needed to execute the NWO just aren't plain smart enough, organized enough, or cooperative enough to execute it, nor will they ever be. NWO is, however, a fascinating social phenomena, and a fairly widespread one at that (especially in the United States), and is worthy of study from a scientific perspective.

Opinion polls

Please add this poll to the article. A survey by Public Policy Polling from 2013 says "28% of voters believe secretive power elite with a globalist agenda is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an authoritarian world government, or New World Order. A plurality of Romney voters (38%) believe in the New World Order compared to 35% who don’t" [13]

Not sure that poll results (any poll results, not just these) are really note worthy (or important) enough to mention in the article.

Something else to consider... It is likely that there are other polls out there that would give different results. As soon as we mention one set of poll results, sure as hell someone is going to insist that we balance that by mentioning some other poll result (one better matching his/her POV)... and then we will end up in a "battle of the poll results" situation, resulting half the article discussing various polls... at the expense of the real purpose of the article: Neutrally outlining what the various proponents and detractors of the theory say. Blueboar (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm totally indifferent about this theory and I'm not trying to insist anything, but I think it would be helpful to add this poll results. I also didnt find any other polls about this theory so I dont see how it can turn into a battle. Even if it does, theres nothing wrong with it. There's a separate article called Opinion polls about 9/11 conspiracy theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.108.247 (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I'm pretty sure a consensus will be unobtainable for this as poll results are generally considered to be WP:OR. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

In this case it wouldn't be OR... the requested addition is essentially a direct quote from the webpage of the folks who conducted the poll. But getting consensus first would be a good idea anyway. Blueboar (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd still be more comfortable with an academic secondary source (or sources) that sums up the variety of polls by area and time, displaying trends. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Link in "History of the term" section

In the section "History of the term", the text gives a quotation from George W Bush's 9/11/90 New World Order speech and a link is provided in the text to a very brief video clip from that speech. Why? None of the quoted words are heard in that clip, so I suggest the link be removed. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Requesting removal of Marxist reference

I'm requesting permission to remove the reference to the Party for Socialism and Liberation in the criticism section on grounds that they are a Communist organization and too far to the left to be credible source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 02:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

They are a perfectly credible source for documenting their own views on the matter, which is exactly how the article treats their views. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't get how they're a credible source considering that they're far-leftist group. Did you even see their ideology? I don't mind there being a criticism section. I just want there to be credible sources to them. Perhaps their quote could be replaced with someone elses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 22:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a tool to spread your political beliefs. To censor them because you disagree with them would be no better than writing articles from a Marxist perspective.

There is noteworthy criticism of NWO conspiracy theories by Marxists. Why bother citing a non-Marxist source that could be a strawman argument by an outside group when there's already a source that pretty conclusively demonstrates what that Marxist criticism is? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with my beliefs. It just that they aren't a credible source because they are too far to the left to be a trust worthy source. The fact that they are listed as a far-leftist group is a red flag.

If you want to replace them, I have a better source from the Southern Poverty Law Center. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/fall/patriot-paranoia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 00:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

What part of "they are trustworthy to establish their own views" do you not get? The only real argument you could make here is that their views are not noteworthy, which would be rather hard given the particular group cited meets the notability guidelines. Their inclusion isn't any sort of validation of their views, and the only apparent reason you're giving to remove them boils down to you disagreeing with them. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I know that this page doesn't hold any validation for their views, but this is Wikipedia. We're supposed to reference trustworthy sources. Like I said this has nothing to do with my views and everything to do with them being an irrelevant source. It you able to reference a more moderate Marxist website that isn't far-leftist you're welcome to do so, but Party for Socialism and Liberation is not a moderate source. How different would it be to reference a neo-Nazi organization. I wouldn't say that citing far-leftist or far-rightist quotes are good for clean Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 01:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I do see a problem here is using the party as a source for Marxists in general, and the party itself seems pretty small to justify using them this way. A better source would be useful. Dougweller (talk) 10:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The group is way too small to be quotable. I'm going to replace it with the Southern Poverty Law center reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.201.165.130 (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Scratch that. I can't seem to edit this page without approval. The group is too small to be a worthy source. If some with access to editing this page can change it that would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.201.165.130 (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The groups ideology looks a little too biased to be quotable. I have to agree with the previous comments on this one. Can anyone with permission to edit this page do so? The Southern Poverty Law Center link sounds like a better source to quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.141.186 (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm replacing the Marxist reference with the Southern Poverty Law center reference. The Party for Socialism and Liberation doesn't even symbolize a majority of Marxists in genera anyway. If anyone can find a Marxist reference that is credible your welcome to use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 15:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2014

Please take the 'conspiracy theory' off this article. Numerous presidents have talked about it, so how can it be a 'theory'? this website should be bipartisan and anyone reading it should be able to make whatever decision they choose by it's content, not from your direction on how they should perceive it! Pegathee

Pegathee (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Per Conspiracy theory, a conspiracy theory is an explanatory proposition that accuses two or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an illegal or harmful event or situation. Content on Wikipedia is guided by a number of policies and guidelines. According to verifiable reliable sources, the whole New World Order thing is clearly a conspiracy theory. In short; it stays. WegianWarrior (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Pegathee... note that the term "conspiracy theory" is in parenthesis... this is called disambiguation, and tells you that there is more than one article that goes by the title "New World Order" ... the one you seem to be talking about is New world order (politics). Blueboar (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

How can I add this part in a neutral way?

How can I add this part in a neutral way?
Nevermind what I wrote here, I think it's better not to add this. Bokareis (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Peter Knight additions

I just sent a mail to Peter Knight

Hi, according to you and Blueboar Peter Knight doesn't know what he is talking about and is not a reliable source. Therefore I have sent a mail to his university mail and asked if he can correct the mistakes in his books. He has written what I added to Wikipedia, but right now thanks to your reverse the sentence doesn't make sense at all anymore, because this is what Peter Knight has never said, but I understand that he writes nonsense from what you say, it's a bit strange thought that they accept a person like that at university to teach to people. But if university professors are not reliable sources, could you explain me what reliable sources are? Wikipedia makes less sense to me everyday. Bokareis (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of whether Mr Knight is reliable or not - if you want his information to influence Wikipedia it's up to you, not me, to show that his input is valid. Where are his published papers? Where are his peer-reviewed papers? I'm not saying he has none, but I'm saying that it's up to you to find them and show him to be a reliable source. If you don't understand that, then I'm not surprised Wikipedia makes less sense to you every day.

You should note that I'm not saying that "Peter Knight doesn't know what he is talking about", nor do I say anywhere "that he writes nonsense". You shouldn't insinuate such things when they are patently untrue. All I said was that it was up to you to justify the inclusion, not up to us to justify the removal.

You have one valid point though - the sentence was not grammatically correct, so I've fixed it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It isn't that Mr. Knight is "not-reliable"... it's that what he says is contradicted by lots of other sources that are more reliable. The idea that the emblems on the Great Seal of the United States were in any way influenced by Freemasonry is a common myth... repeated by many people (even by well intended, but misinformed Masons)... but it has been thoroughly debunked. It's a matter of WP:DUE WEIGHT. The sources that debunk the connection between Freemasonry and the seal out weigh the sources that say a connection exists. Blueboar (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

That said... if we are now citing Knight for something he does not say... we should remove the citation. Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Moved from my talk page, as it seems more appropriate here. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure emails aren't under WP:Identifying reliable sources, since they're hardly verifiable. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Valid reliable reference?

The following sentence: "The United Nations was designed in 1945 by U.S. bankers and State Department planners, and was always intended to remain a free association of sovereign nation-states, not a transition to democratic world government," is supported by an article by a J. Hughes, Ph.D., apparently "Executive Director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies", a sociologist and bioethicist teaching health policy at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut. He has excellent personal credentials. However I am not able to verify that the UN was designed by "by U.S. bankers and State Department planners" anywhere else and this dude is not an historian but teaches health. Adding this sentence suggests Wikipedia stands behind the idea that bankers started the U.N. Are we? Or is there some question about this veracity? What can we do here? Can/should we ask for more verification? I can't find any myself though I have looked. Bankers did start the World Bank, now associated with the U.N. but not the U.N. itself, if one reads the history of the U.N. at its own site.Ridingdog (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

This article does not take a neutral stance on the topic it is describing.

I am not at all a conspiracy theorist, if anything I am the opposite. I know a couple of things about the history of the Illuminati, the Free Masons, etc and what happened to these early secret societies in later years. I don't think we're ruled by a secret government, and even if we were, I don't believe it would make that much of a difference in the larger scheme of things. It certainly wouldn't make me feel any less or more empowered to know that the US government was really in charge - or to find out that it wasn't.

Having said that - I read this article for work research. And I have to say it is not an objective article. It is clearly trying to prove that conspiracy theory is a hoax and a pastime for people who have nothing better to do. And that does not belong in an Encyclopedia. There's nothing wrong with citing examples that both prove and disprove the validity of a certain thing, but when there is so much emphasis on proving that these theories are a hoax, it becomes a very irritating read for someone who is simply trying to do un-biased research, and it makes one think that the article can't be trusted. And I wanted to point that out, here, because Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, and I've never had this problem with an article on Wikipedia before - I actually created a Wikipedia account just to be able to write this comment. Again, let me reiterate that I, like the writer of this article, I personally lean towards the position that most of these conspiracy theories are indeed a hoax, but that doesn't mean that I want that agenda shoved down my throat when I read what is supposed to be an objective description of this particular topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roslo1426 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Please point to problematic portions of the article, or suggest how a neutral article would look. Otherwise, your post is useless complaining.

However, do note that you yourself agree that the conspiracy theory is wrong. We do not give "equal validity" to both sides of a discussion when one is rejects and is rejected by mainstream science, history, and academia; and so in describing the facts of the conspiracy theory, it is described as wrong. This is no different than our article Earth having a strong bias against beliefs that the earth is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

How does the Earth being flat or hollowed have any correlation to this topic? All you did was take an irrelevant subject, and juxtaposed it to modern alternate theories. Not too mention most of these concurrent "theories" have yet to be completely (and scientifically) debunked. The error in this page was pointed out in the fact that it goes into extra efforts to emphasize that all these theories are false, instead of taking a neutral stance. I couldn't agree more with the fact that the only articles on Wikipedia where I run into this problem are those of controversy. So, without an irrelevant juxtaposed, can you please explain to me why Wikipedia fails to take a neutral stance on this subject or any other controversial subject.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:fb90:270e:ddda:5eda:7640:7e69:87ac (talk • contribs)

When Wikipedia decides to be "neutral," that means it presents information according to the broader academic and journalistic consensus. It does not mean that it creates an illusion of equal validity to views that are outright delusional and utterly rejected by mainstream academia. The comparison with the flat earth is that as flat-earthers make delusional claims about the shape of the earth that we do not give a false sense of equal validity; so to do conspiracy theorists make delusional claims about the shape of society that we do not give a false sense of equal validity.

It is not mainstream academia's job to "debunk" the theories (although many are debunked if you do any real homework), it is the conspiracy theorist's job to present proper evidence that can be recognized as such by anyone. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

If you ever have a chance walk the halls of American politics and government departments (let alone those of European universities) you will find that ideas of one world government, whether conceived in normative or explicitly political terms, are overwhelmingly considered inevitable and welcome future outcomes of post-1945 developments. Asking for proof of this is disingenuous as complex political events are not available for the purposes of proof or falsification. It is necessary to consider the success of powerful academics such as Alexander Wendt, Peter Singer, Thomas Pogge and other one world rationalists against the complete marginalization of particularists of various forms. The conspiracy theorists may be hung up on ridiculous details such as the Illuminati myth, yet they are much closer to understanding the momentum of events than many would like to believe. However, whether this is alarming or not depends entirely on your own political inclinations.

ILLUMINATI

wikipedia is run by illuminati, spreading false deception — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.209.55.142 (talk) 03:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The above statement is irrelevant.This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. --Mr. Guye (talk) 03:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

"Please be neutral when editing this highly sensitive article. It discusses a topic about which people have diverse opinions." I've read through this piece, and from this material, I'm led to conclude that the New World Order conspiracy theory is an opinion historically held by 'right-winger' Americans, exclusively. Seeing some clear bias in the references, as well, as there are undoubtedly other significant yet somehow uncited groups of individuals in American history and elsewhere that have also subscribed to this theory besides those who adhere to a single particular political philosophy, to which it seems a majority of the editors on this page aren't opposed to devoting special attention to by grand-sweep linking its practitioners' politics with a conspiracy theory.

In all fairness, and as a Conservative, myself, I would happily give this page an A if I had assigned the writers to cite historical events that support a correlation between Conservative thinking and the NWO conspiracy theory. Needs focus. C- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.241.189 (talk) 04:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2015

Fix year "22014" in reference #9. 85.245.212.103 (talk) 09:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Done -Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Harry S. Truman and freemasonry

So, after reading the section on Freemasonry thoroughly, I failed to see any mention of Harry S Truman and his less than secretive ties to Freemasonry. Could this possibly be added somewhere into the section about Freemasonry? Thanks.

2607:FB90:270E:DDDA:5EDA:7640:7E69:87AC (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

What importance/relevance would that have for the article? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it have relevance? He was the President of the United States, and a freemason. Since there is an article on freemasons, and it talks about possible connections to the Founding Fathers, why is a subarticle about freemasons and more current presidents irrelevant? 2607:FB90:270E:DDDA:5EDA:7640:7E69:87AC (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me try this again. If you look closely at the article, you'll notice that the material discussing common motifs in conspiracy theorist fantasies cite reliable academic source that is independent of conspiracy theorism for each portion. That's because Wikipedia does not propagate any sort of original research, especially conspiracy theorist fantasies, and so we just summarize what reliable and mainstream academic sources say without addition, interpretation, alteration, or elaboration.

Now, what mainstream academic sources do you have that demonstrates that Truman being a Freemason is a common theme in conspiracy theorist fiction? Merely going with "freemasons are mentioned in the article" and "Truman was a mason" is synthesis of unrelated sources to make statements neither makes, which goes against our policy on original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, so you just assume I'm making the presumption that Truman was a Mason. Based on the idea that I think that every president is a freemason, right? That right there, that attitude, is a complete reflection of what's wrong with this page.

By the way, it says it right here on Wikipedia.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/treasure/treasure_hunt_02.html

2607:FB90:270E:DDDA:5EDA:7640:7E69:87AC (talk) 06:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I suspect what Ian.thomson is pointing out as synth and OR is the idea that Truman being a mason has any bearing on the NWO conspiracy theory... if there is no mainstream sources that tie the two together, it don't belong in this article. WegianWarrior (talk) 08:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, Harry S. Truman, a Freemason none the less, was the President who formed the National Security Agency. Isn't the NSA a part of the spying, or mass surveillance, that's taking place on every U.S. citizen? Yet, It's not mentioned anywhere in this article, specifically the part about 'mass surveillance'. Isn't that odd? 70.90.174.173 (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

It is not at all odd for those who follow Occam's razor and our policy against original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists are often inconsistent... and one of the inconsistencies of the NWO conspiracy theory is that while proponents make a big deal about FDR being a Mason, they rarely even mention that Truman was a Mason. The amount of coverage our article gives to things has to be based on the prevalence of coverage in sources... and that means lack of mention in sources has to equate to lack of coverage in this article. It would be UNDUE for Wikipedia to mention Truman when the NWO conspiracy theorists themselves don't bother to mention him. Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Bin Laden

This was brought up by an IP at Talk:Illuminati, but it seems more relevant here. This source has a gov't official saying that "bin Laden was probably an avid conspiracy theorist," and it and others discuss books about 'the Illuminati.' I haven't found a source saying that he believed he was opposing 'the' NWO yet, but it may come up. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2015

reference number 47 has wrong link. The right link is : http://www.scientiapress.com/carroll-quigley Vikrantsingh47 (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Done Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 00:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)