Talk:New world order (politics)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Novos Ordo Seculorum

Novos Ordo Seculorum appears on the back of the dollar bill (under the pyramid) as part of the Great Seal of the United States, you should probably mention that.

Novus Ordo Seclorum means "New Order of the Ages," not "New World Order." --Cholling 21:13, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've read in numerous books that bringing about a New World Order is called "The Work of the Ages," so "New Order of the Ages" may still have some relevance.

I wish there were some quotes from the Wilson era. The first time I heard of "New World Order" was a reference that said it came from the Nazis, but there is no reference to those scum bags here any where. Anyone have such references to either era? ShoLobberT 15:31, 28 Dec 2006 (UTC)

Real Beginning of Use

You seem to ignore that the original use of the Motto "new world oder" began with the Illuminati that was quickly banned by the Holy Roman Emperor but many feel survived in the follow on organization the Bilderberg Club. /s/ kitchen of khartoom 8th 69.121.221.97 (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Article on use of the phrase

It may be interesting if someone did an article on uses of the phrase "New World Order" throughout history, either as pro-world government (used by H.G. Wells, Buckminster Fuller, Hubert Humphrey, Richard Nixon, the World Constitution and Parliament Association and others listed here), anti-world government (Graeme K. Howard (Isolationist, pro-Nazi VP of General Motors in the 1930's-40's), Malcom X and numerous conspiracy theorists) or neither (The "Simon" Necronomicon And "Adam" in Superman Family #192.) If someone will start it and include the quotes cited on Wikiepdia right now, I can add all the ones I know about... Orville Eastland 23:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this article is the best place for that. I notice the phrase also appears in the song Der Fuehrer's Face. It's implied that it was a Nazi slogan. -- Townmouse 23:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the proper place for those usages would be the New World Order (conspiracy) or World government articles.—thames 18:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
That would be the best place for most of them. However, there are some that aren't conspiracy theories or supportive of world government. Where should those go? Orville Eastland 03:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it depends on the quote itself, whether it explicitly uses the phrase "new world order", and in what context the quote is used by the author. If you have some, I'd love to discuss them here on the talk page to see if we can find an appropriate place to integrate them.—Perceval 17:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

why are pro wrestling nwo members on this page like hulk hogan? or was hulk hogan a legitimate member of the cold war political movement... im going to delete that if you want you can put it back in Kfmccart 00:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

'optimism'?

This line in the introduction seems wrong: "...was characterized by nearly comprehensive optimism." I've never heard 'New World Order' used in a positive or optimistic light, but then again, I've pretty rarely heard it - mostly music, online political writing, etc. I think the sentence in not particularly clear. The NWO is considered now or was once considered to be 'optimistic', or was it just the press? etc.

I agree, that could be worded better. heqs 23:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
If you have a Nexis account you can read through all the newspaper articles from the timeperiod of 1989 through 1991 referencing "new world order". The specific usage of Gorbachev and Bush Sr. was optimistic, as opposed to the conspiracy theorists' usage of a sinister new world order (which I think is what you're recalling). This article is principally about the usage at the end of the Cold War. The conspiracy theory usage has its own separate article.—Perceval 06:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

lead quote

What exactly is that quote doing floating at the top of the article? heqs 23:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems pretty clear that the "new world order" was a by-product of the Cold War.—Perceval 06:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
On the face of it, it's clear as mud. The Cold War isn't mentioned until halfway through the intro. That quote in that location is merely confusing and unencyclopedic. heqs 09:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it's just me, but it seems odd form for an encyclopedia article. Quotes should be given more explicit context in the body, not floating on top of the intro. heqs 15:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I've seen it elsewhere in Wikipedia. There's no prohibition in the Manual of Style.—Perceval 02:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
You might want to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Lead section. heqs 08:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm already quite familiar with WP:LEDE, but thanks for the friendly pointer nonetheless. It doesn't really have a prohibition on having a quote, the quote helps establish context, and regardless, you shouldn't have deleted it because it might serve elsewhere in the article. It's generally bad form to delete cited content. That said, I have seen other Wikipedia articles start with a context-establishing quote. There's no rule that an encyclopedia can't be artful as well. Moreover, the quote is clearly distinguished from the lede text proper with use of Template:cquote. Finally, WP:LEDE is a guideline, not policy. If the quote adds in establishing the tone of the topic then it should stay, and the guideline can bend: Wikipedia:Interpret all rules.—Perceval 00:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Conservative opposition

This is important information. Conservative critics like Pat Buchanan are mentioned in the article already, but it could be expanded. Rather than dumping an unsourced list into the current article, I think the best thing would be to see if we can rewrite the list into paragraph form, with sources to attribute for each one. Another important distinction is whether these groups are discussing the "new world order" concept as enunciated by Gorbachev and Bush Sr., or whether they're talking about the more conspiratorial one world government new world order idea. If it's the latter, the information should go into the New World Order (conspiracy) article.—Perceval 02:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

How can there be a New World Order (conspiracy) if there is a real and admitted New World Order (politics)? Both refer to the same world government (which now exists). Call it "New World Order (controversy)" or "New World Order Opposition". Calling it a conspiracy is POV and is contradicted by the existence of the New World Order (politics) article no?

Conservative Opposition to New World Order

"The Malta Conference of 2-3 December 1989"

The link to Malta_Conference references an event from 1945. Something's amiss here... Crag 08:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Bush's "New World Order" speech?

Someone please write a snippet about George HW Bush's speech on 9/11/91 10 years before 9/11? Am I kidding myself with his State of the Union Address?

"What is at stake is more than one small country; it is a big idea: a new world order, where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind -- peace and security, freedom, and the rule of law. Such is a world worthy of our struggle and worthy of our children's future."

--131.104.250.176 14:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)User:Xinyu

Bush did make a speech on Sep 11 1990, not 1991. This speech is discussed already in the article text. Bush made another speech on Mar 6, 1991, to a session of the House, when he also discussed the new world order. This is not (yet) treated in the text. I have found the text and will upload it to Wikisource.—Perceval 02:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess that I am a little confused about the "Key Points Taken by the Press". They mention "Islamic Terrorists", but that term was not around back then and nothing referring to Islam is in Bush Sr's 9/11/90 speech. 146.235.66.52 (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is a video of the speech you are describing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc7i0wCFf8g I guess the OCD wiki control freaks watching this page feel George Bush is a conspiracy theorist, because the new world order is just a theory some people have. 71.181.44.226 (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The post-Cold War "new world order"

"The New world order is the real plan of the global elite to set up an oligarchical totalitarian fascist Feudalistic anti-utopian global police state. A global currency is at the very core of their plan to dominate the world. Control money and you control the destiny of states, you eliminate national sovereignty. If you don't beleave in the legitimacy of this definition try googleing european union global currency."

I don't "beleave" in its legitimacy nor do I use google so I added Citation Needed. Snorks1234 (talk) 08:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

That was a bit of an insane edit that was just added by an anonymous (IP) user, I went ahead and reverted it back to the last version prior to this user's edit. Thanks for pointing it out. Andrew Nutter  Talk | Contribs  09:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Analysis of these recent statements

Isn't this whole section analysis? What's it doing in an encyclopedia article? It's also, apparently, completely unreferenced. I'm nuking it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research Jbmcb (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

New World Order v. New world order

For what should be obvious reasons, a search for either of these should take one first to the DAB page: New world order (disambiguation). --Ludvikus (talk) 13:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

  • In part I haven't made the "proposed moves" because I forgot the name of the noticeboard were such proposals are posted. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: change in proposed currents and destinations; relisting ~~~~

JHunterJ (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Old requested move

New world order → New world order (disambiguation) — There's an obvious need to DAB these pages. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC) New World Order → New world order (disambiguation)

  • Oppose moves - New world order has been an article at that title since 17 April 2004. There has been no discussion to suggest any consensus that this is not the primary usage of this term. There is a hatnote directing readers to the dab page if they are looking for other uses of the phrase. There are several items called "New World Order" with caps, which are correctly disambiguated by the dab page which is, correctly, at New World Order as there is no primary usage, and which combines the multiple capitalisations as described at WP:DPAGE. No need for the proposed changes (and the proposal does not explain what would happen to the article currently at New world order, which clearly cannot be renamed as a dab page!). PamD (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
And New World Order became a dab page also in April 2004 and, as far as I can see, has always been one since then. PamD (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Question: Ludvikus, I think you've got an idea of what you want, and I think that the proposed moves may not be it.
    1. Do you think there is a primary topic article for "new world order"?
    2. If so, which article?
    3. Do you think there is a primary topic article for "New World Order"?
    4. If so, which article?
  • based on the answers to those questions, I think we can see what moves would effect those answers. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Answer Excellent question -it's extremely helpful to me in making my point. I think that the two meaning carry equal weight now (I'm sad to say).
  • Does WP tell us what to do when 2 meanings are equal regarding "primacy"? --Ludvikus (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
    • And even if there was a way to assess "primacy," there's this: "New" v. "new" & "Order" v. "order." Get my point? --Ludvikus (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
      We're not quite there. New world order is an article. Do you agree it's the primary topic for "new world order"? If so, it doesn't need to be moved. New World Order is a disambiguation page. Do you think that one of the articles listed there (new world order or one of the other ones) is the primary topic for "New World Order"? If so, your move proposal is for "New World Order" → "New World Order (disambiguation)" and for "(whichever article you think is primary)" → "New World Order" (or for "New World Order" to become a redirect to New world order). If two means are "equally primary", then there is no primary meaning, and the base name is a dab page. Capitalization differences may or may not lead to different primary topics (or lack thereof) -- the guidelines to not dictate or prohibit it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • (E/C)Tentative Oppose I'm not sure I understand the reason for the move (or where the present article would be moved to). The primary topic for the 'nwo' article would seem to be this politics article, whereas there doesn't appear to be a primary topic for NWO (hence the need for the DAB page).The further need for disambiguation due to capitalization complications seems to be amply handled by the hatnotes on this page, and the dab page at NWO. So the only need for a move would be if we wanted to combine the 'nwo' and 'NWO' articles into one capitalization-insensitive DAB and move the present 'nwo' article to some other title. But I'm not sure why we'd want to bother doing that. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I've noticed on your User page that you're and expert on DAB pages - so I'll trust your judgment on execution: (1) New world order (in the political sense) is in a "dead heat" with the "Conspiracy theory" meaning - regarding "primacy," (2) it makes no sense to send people anywhere based on capitalization rules, (3) a natural place to go, I think, is to the DAB just because of that, (4) "New world order (disambiguation)" seems the ideal DAB name; (5) the three-word phrases, irrespective of capitalization, should Redirect to the DAB, (5) I haven't decided if this is best: "New world order (politics)" - the stand alone version I think is no good. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
        I believe, then that the moves you are looking for are:
        New world order → New world order (politics)
        and then make New world order redirect to the existing New World Order disambiguation page
        -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
          • That sounds sound by me. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

← Support above. I concur with Ludvikus: given potential capitalization confusion issues, it makes sense to cut down on potential confusion by using a DAB as the main page for the various capitalizations. --Bfigura (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Thumb up to you. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was "moved" —Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:43, October 19, 2009 (UTC) 20:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Tentative support if it resolves the disambiguation problem. --Loremaster (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
    Comment: I think the new article should be titled new world order (international relations) instead of new world order (politics) (because the New World Order (conspiracy theory) is also political in nature). --Loremaster (talk) 20:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
    or "New world order (geopolitics)"? I have not particular attachment to the "politics" disambiguator, but note that it need only be distinct enough to make the title unique -- it doesn't have to avoid all overlap with other topics. We expect users to reach the article through a dab, not by specifying the disamibiguator directly. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
    No. Geopolitics is the art and practice of using political power over a given territory while international relations is about foreign affairs and global issues among states within the international system, including the roles of states, inter-governmental organizations, non-governmental organizations, and multinational corporations. The term "new world order" is primarily used by politicians and pundits in the context of the latter. --Loremaster (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per reasons listed in above section. --Bfigura (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Too many uses of "new world order" and variations to continue representing this as a primary topic. bd2412 T 19:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Mild support - with some surprise that the "nwo" article has sat there for 5 years with no-one disputing its role as primary usage! But I'm not interested in the subject matter, only dropped by when, in the course of various recent edits, one of them turned up in Category:Stubs for stub-sorting. PamD (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong support' Anything is better then what we have now. "Politics" is best - but I'm open-minded on it. We can fine-tune things later. Thumbs-up to JHunter for giving us his DAB expertise. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment1: See [1]. Thanks to the advice of User:Dekimasu therein, it's now clear to me that New world order must be the DAB page - due to the existence of New World Order. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment2: So we need to free it so that the DAB page may move into it. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Question: Why is "politics" (which is vague) better than "international relations" (which is more precise and relevant)? --Loremaster (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. See my comment at the DAB talkpage for my reasons. Jubilee♫clipman 15:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
    Comment as I state there, the DAB page title should be either "New world order (disambiguation)" or "New World Order (disambiguation)", depending on the relevant policy. Jubilee♫clipman 15:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
    That's a separate issue from the proposal here, and (if there's no primary topic) also contrary to the guidelines. (And this is evidence of why the move requests should not have been made overlapping.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
    Comment: as I state there, the DAB page title should be either "New world order (disambiguation)" or "New World Order (disambiguation)", depending on the relevant policy. Jubilee♫clipman 15:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
    Question: Since any DAB page/article is clearly a page/article in Wikipedia (with the neologism, "disambiguation," attached at the end) isn't it conclusive that your first choice must prevail? --Ludvikus (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
    If that question is for me, please see the Wikipedia guideline links at the other (more appropriate) discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
    My ? is for the person giving "support" here: Jubilee♫ --Ludvikus (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral -- I suppose I should note, as the nominator, that I am actually neutral in this move. I have no issue with the current article remaining the primary topic for "new world order", and initiated the RM as a clarification of the original proposal above. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support -- seems to make sense, but (with any of the disambiguators specified so far), but we have to make sure to move all the current pointers before redirecting New world order to New World Order. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

undue

i think mention of international relations theory in the lede (or at least the very first sentence) is WP:UNDUE 212.200.205.163 (talk) 05:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_world_order_(politics)/Archive_1&oldid=1089055235"