Talk:New World Order

message: :There was the belief that this process would begin in 2000, set in motion by the predicted Y2K computer crisis causing widespread social disorder.
This, like nearly all the other claims made in this article, need some sort historical context or attribution.  I think this needs a lot more research (you know, there has been a lot of research done on conspiracy theories by thoroughly sane people). --LMS — Preceding undated comment added 21:33, 18 February 2002 (UTC)
replies: text: That was to a New Order, although some would fancy a similarity between the two. -- John Owens 21:08, 3 June 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

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

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

message: I'm amazed that there's no mention of President George H. W. Bush (the first President Bush).  He famously used that phrase after the fall of the Soviet Union, and I'd have assumed that if there's a rock band bearing that name, it's in the nature of a political cartoon referring to that.  Isn't his use of the term on that occasion the main reason why it's widely known today? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that was indeed the commonly understood meaning in which the term was used in politics - this is mentioned on the page New world order (politics) - Wikipedia. I've moved that page from the section Other to the top, as that was the original usage of the term - which was totally not in the context of any conspiracy theory... 2A02:1811:418:1400:6CFE:35AC:4FA3:7EB2 (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's George H. W. Bush 

message: I had no idea this DAB page existed. So I created one. Now I wish to merge this into the DAB. --Ludvikus (talk) 06:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There could be discussion about what name the dab page should be at, but there is no reason to create a second dab page. I have redirected New world order (disambiguation) to point to this dab page (New World Order), and removed the merge tag. PamD (talk) 07:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pleased to be in agreement with you. I created the "new" DAB page because I had no idea that one existed already. And that's precisely why we need what you now propose. I'm with you on that 100%. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

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

text: PS2: Look where this takes us: new world order (as if no other usages, or articles, existed). --Ludvikus (talk) 13:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have proposed two different possible solutions. Which are you in agreement with? WP:RM has the instructions for requesting a move. It is acceptable for New world order and New World Order to lead to different articles, or for one to lead to an article and the other to lead to a dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a DAB page 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:New world order which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RFC bot 16:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in process (1 of 2) 

message: They all concern themselves with the same thing on a less controversial topic it would be concentrated into one article. Adding NPOV would be futile, but let this stand as a protest against these proceedings till it gets removed.  91.128.17.20 (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yours is a pov view. Any academic political scientist, for instance, would strongly disagree. Any conspiracy theorist would of course agree with you. Dougweller (talk) 06:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The presence of this disambiguation page is a manifest to the hypocrisy currently present on wikipedia.