Jump to content

Talk:New world order (politics): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Memotype (talk | contribs)
Line 23: Line 23:
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. &mdash;''[[User:Memotype|Memotype]]''::<small>'''[[User talk:Memotype|T]]'''</small> 16:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
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. &mdash;''[[User:Memotype|Memotype]]''::<small>'''[[User talk:Memotype|T]]'''</small> 16:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


:@[[User:Memotype|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 discus’s Wikipedia or the Nee World Order (Politics), which is not about the conspiracy theory. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 20:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Memotype|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. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk: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. &mdash;''[[User:Memotype|Memotype]]''::<small>'''[[User talk:Memotype|T]]'''</small> 18:24, 21 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. &mdash;''[[User:Memotype|Memotype]]''::<small>'''[[User talk:Memotype|T]]'''</small> 18:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:24, 21 January 2024


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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]