Talk:New world order (politics)

Why does this article read like a Politico "fact check" piece?

Language like "neither Franklin Roosevelt nor Harry S. Truman used the phrase "new world order" much when speaking publicly" sounds like it's trying really hard to disprove something, rather than actually explaining the concept as an encyclopedia would. And you people wonder why Wikipedia is mocked so harshly as a biased source of information. —Memotype::T 16:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Memotype Yes, mocked by those who don’t like mainstream sources, eg Creationists, conspiracy theorists, and those way over to the left or right politically. That’s no surprise. But this isn’t a page to discuss Wikipedia or the New World Order (Politics), which is not about the conspiracy theory. Doug Weller talk 20:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You criticize my secondary point, but don't address my main point. Why does this article read like it's trying really hard to disprove something that hasn't even been brought up yet in the article? This is clearly not written from a NPOV, and your defensiveness only emphasizes my point. —Memotype::T 18:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Memotype then put your money where your mouth is and take it to WP:NPOVN if you are so sure. Doug Weller talk 19:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Good idea, thanks. —Memotype::T 17:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it reads weirdly. How notable is it that two figures didn’t invoke a concept/use a phrase often? It doesn’t seem like it should be included in the lede, and if it’s included at all, it should be in the context of notability, which I understand is some controversy over whether these two used the term much(?). As it stands, context-less in the lede, it seems like a really unimportant inclusion, and I do assume as a reader that there’s some attempted mythbusting happening that I haven’t been clued in on. Zanahary (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Turns out that those parts were all original research anyways. Zanahary (talk) 03:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Your recent changes to the lead seem to remove quite a few citations. DN (talk) 03:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Those citations were (unless I missed some good ones) didn't support the text they were supposed to cite, or were being used for original research/synthesis. Zanahary (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

"Indeed, in some instances when Roosevelt used the phrase "new world order", or "new order in the world" it was to refer to Axis powers plans for world domination." The citation from The American Presidency Project states..."Hitler has often protested that his plans for conquest do not extend across the Atlantic Ocean. His submarines and raiders prove otherwise. So does the entire design of his new world order."

This seems to corroborate the accuracy of the citation. Therefore I'm reverting your sweeping edit. I suggest you address changes incrementally to achieve consensus. DN (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Got it. What do you think of the newer revision? Zanahary (talk) 04:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Much better, thank you for the extra effort to find consensus, it is appreciated. I agree the search engine is awkward as a citation, and I'm not sure how policy applies there. Let's see if other editors weigh in. DN (talk) 06:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

History

Explain what was the new world order after 1945 103.239.160.49 (talk) 08:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)