This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Carroll Quigley article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article stikes me as excessively laudatory (POV). Let's either make the tone more neutral or provide good cites for the adulation. -- 201.50.126.220 19:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Prof. Quigley was feared and despised by many Georgetown students, because of his arrogant manner and because a significant proportion of students (who were required to take his basic course) failed his examinations. He became famous instead of fading into history only because his name was mentioned by Bill Clinton - so let's get real and show both sides. 69.141.242.5 20:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Why source fail? 218.186.64.87 ( talk) 15:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The source fails because it is just some guy's website, please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources. According to WP:WELLKNOWN, if Clinton did, in fact, say these things then it should be quite easy for you to find a source that passes muster with WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BIO. Your constant reverting is tiresome, if you edit something into an article and it gets removed more than once then you should stop trying to add it and hit the talk page. Cheers. L0b0t ( talk) 16:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
This is the text of a paragraph that was hidden for some reason, and today was deleted. Placing it here as it has some context and resources which some editors may find useful at some point:
The documentary "The Capitalist Conspiracy: An Inside View of International Banking " by G. Edward Griffin in 1971 goes into detail as to how Dr. Quigley exposed the aforementioned conspiracy. It can be found on YouTube and Google Video. On page 950 of Tragedy and Hope, Quigley writes "I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for 20 years, and was permitted for 2 years in the early 1960s to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it, or most of its aims, and have for much of life been close to it and to many of its instruments. In general my chief difference of opinion is that is wishes to remain unknown". Quigley goes on to name the banking dynasties behind the conspiracy, which are Barring, Hambros, Lazard, Erlanger, Warburg (merged with Rockefeller and Chase Manhattan), Schroder, Selingman, Speyers, Mirabald, Mallet, Fould, Rothschild, and J.P. Morgan. It is noted that this conspiracy transcends race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, and is named only as "The International Bankers". The conspiracy is said to control and manipulate the money system of a nation while letting it appear to be controlled by the government. The net effect is to create money out of nothing, lend it to the goverment, and collect interest on it. Since the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, the United States money supply has been in the control of a private corporation, the Federal Reserve, whose board members are appointed solely by the President. Approximately half of the current board members are not US Citizens, yet they control US monetary policy.
- NJGW ( talk) 16:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, could someone find someone or any one who has the book and ask them to transfer it to electronic format since this dear book is so out of print...and yeah, give them the credit.
Thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.137.53.143 ( talk) 22:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I've added some new material to this article (see Carroll Quigley#Quigley and secret societies). It discusses Quigley's writing on secret societies, and the citation of Quigley as an authority on this topic by other authors.
Since this subject might generate disagreement, let me explain in advance why I think it satisfies Wikipedia's notability and neutral point of view policies.
First, notability. I recognize that there are many Quigley fans (including some who have edited this article and/or talk page) who feel that what makes Quigley important has nothing to do with his writing about secret societies. And certainly the most important fact about Quigley's personal history was that he was a professor at Georgetown's School of Foreign Service, which wasn't based on his writing on this topic.
However, a quick search online -- or just clicking this page's What Links Here link -- will show that Quigley is most frequently cited for his writing on this subject. Moreover, Quigley's own books have sold only a tiny fraction of what books such as None Dare Call It Conspiracy and Rule By Secrecy have sold; both of these were bestsellers. The John Birch Society has cited Quigley repeatedly for almost four decades, making not only his ideas but even his photograph familiar to their members.
So this appears to be the most well-publicized facet of Quigley's work, and it follows that by WP:NOTE it should be mentioned in the Quigley article.
But if the way that other writers cited Quigley on secret societies appears in the article, then fairness and WP:NPOV requires that the article also state what Quigley himself asserted about this subject. I have placed this first in the article, because that makes sense chronologically and also in terms of fairness.
Some remaining questions:
1. Is the current coverage fair and neutral? In particular, can I remove the "neutrality is disputed" notice at the top of the page?
2. The sources I have cited are all easily-available secondary sources, which can be found at most university libraries (and often online). I would like to have quoted Quigley's response to the books who cited him. But the only source I have found is this online audio interview [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], which appears to have been a private interview (not a radio interview) with a student or journalist, apparently made in 1975. In this interview, Quigley discusses how he learned of Cleon Skousen's and Gary Allen's books, and how he feels they distorted his views. Quigley asserts in this interview that the error of Skousen and Allen is to link all the conspiracies into one conspiracy, aiming at "world domination", when in fact the Rhodes-Milner conspiracy merely aimed at creating "a union of the Atlantic Bloc". But despite its relevance, it seems to violate WP:NOR to include information from this audio tape. Any opinions on this?
3. Is anyone aware of any responses to Quigley's theories by reputable historians, or in academic journals or reviews? If so, that might be another viewpoint which is worth representing.
4. Does anyone object to the terms "conspiracy theorist" or "conspiracy theory" themselves? Are these terms intrinsically POV or pejorative? If anyone feels that they are, please suggest an alternative term. My intent was to use terminology that was truly neutral, and which would not be offensive to those who believe in conspiracies, nor to those who scoff at the idea. — Lawrence King ( talk) 21:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Why does the very important book "tragedy and hope" doesn't have an article of itself?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.3.169 ( talk) 18:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I just reverted an IP who linked to the Quigley fan site which contains copyrighted material. I think it's better to link to the actual source or official archive of those instead of to the fan site. This brought to my attention that http://www.tboyle.net/Catholicism/Carroll_Quigley.html is also a copyright violation (the Post owns the rights to the Star archives). There's no digital archive of these, so unfortunately there's no link we can provide to readers, but the link is here if anyone wants to double check the source, or they can check the text on fan site as well. T34CH ( talk) 15:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Today (March 17, 2012) a non-registered editor added a massive amount of additional quotes from Quigley's books. [6] This follows the pattern of an edit from three months ago, also from an unregistered editor, adding a tremendous amount of additional quotes: [7]
The result of these two edits is a page that is far too long and which consists of far too many long quoted passages. This is not how a Wikipedia article should read.
If this prose is still under copyright, this is probably a copyright violation. If it is not under copyright, this prose should be added to Wikisource or some other repository, rather than this article.
If the editor(s) who added these quotes want to remove between 60% and 75% of the new material, please do so. It seems better for you to make the decision as to which parts of this new material is the most important. — Lawrence King ( talk) 19:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with this edit: [8]
At the bottom of the Quigley article there is a link to a PDF of the entire book. If you go to page 951, you will see the following sentence on lines 9-12 (emphasis added by me):
Brand died in 1963. Therefore it seems clear to me that this passage asserts that the activity of this organization was "greatly reduced" after 1963. Does anyone disagree? If this issue really is in dispute then I suppose by NOR it is right to delete this sentence. I didn't think this violated NOR because it seemed a clear statement in Tragedy & Hope that required no interpretation by us. — Lawrence King ( talk) 21:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I find the use of this term in this context to be nonsensical and disconcerting. After considerable search I found one scholarly article on this subject: http://www.anthonyflood.com/owensaquinasphilopluralism.htm The use of the term "pluralism" in reference to Thomism seems to me to be completely misguided and inappropriate in the context of Carroll Quiqley's book Tragedy and Hope (which I have read). I'd really like to see a reference on this.
Gretchenblitz ( talk) 19:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
His work emphasized "inclusive diversity" as a value of Western Civilization long before diversity became commonplace, and he denounced Platonic doctrines as an especially pernicious deviation from this ideal, preferring the pluralism of Thomas Aquinas.
''like this''
. —
Lawrence King (
talk) 02:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Carroll Quigley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
References to two articles were provided as evidence that mainstream academic historians are skeptical regarding Quigley's views on the Round Table Group. As it turns out, neither source appears to mention Quigley, so I have removed them. The references in question are:
Ted Goertzel (1994).
"Belief in Conspiracy Theories". Political Psychology. 15 (4): 733–744.
doi:
10.2307/3791630.
JSTOR
3791630. Retrieved 2009-02-26. {{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month=
(
help)
Seymour Martin Lipset and Earl Raab (1970). The Politics of Unreason. Harper & Row.
Laughing sandbags ( talk) 18:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Update: I deleted the assertion that "Quigley's views are particularly notable because the majority of reputable academic historians profess skepticism about his views on the Round Table group" as it was unsupported by the two references above that appeared to support it. I haven't so far been able to find any serious attempt to follow up on or debunk the theory Quigley presents in The Anglo-American Establishment. Laughing sandbags ( talk) 13:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
There is not even any reference saying Quigley was a conspiracy theorist, let alone the fact that, besides him being an accredited historian, his accounts of history is no more 'conspiratorial' than any other standard textbook accounts. Removing him from the conspiracy theorists category (please don't undo this before debating this here). — Wisdomtooth32 ( talk) 00:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Secondly, the removal of the tag was a vandalizing edit. I'm neutral on this, but I've restored it as a means of stabilizing an edit war. If you are going to remove it, you should all discuss it here, but I don't see the sense in arguing over reverting an edit made by someone trying to make a point. This should go to an RfC. I'm just keeping status quo to a non-vandalized form of the article. -- Owlsmcgee ( talk) 06:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
References
The consensus is to remove Category:Conspiracy theorists, which was done here.
What evidence is needed to support the "conspiracy theorist" tag? Seeking consensus to end an edit war between Jrheller1 and Tarage over the use of the term "conspiracy theorist" to describe Carroll Quigley. I came across this page after tracking down a vandal's history (banned user WisdomTooth32) and found the vandal had also removed the "conspiracy theorist" tag. (I think this is coincidental, and for the record, I don't believe Jrheller1 is a sock puppet of the vandal). I have laid out the case (in the talk page section directly above this one) for what I've found in academic searches, but would appreciate additional neutral editors weighing in on what evidence is needed to support the "conspiracy theorist" tag. I also hope that Jrheller1 will cease reverting the category until we generate an actual consensus. Thanks everyone! -- Owlsmcgee ( talk) 07:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I came for the RfC, but noticed this: Quigley argued that the Round Table groups were not World Government advocates but super-imperialists. He stated that they emphatically did not want the League of Nations to become a World Government. Yet Lionel Curtis, who, according to Quigley, was one of the leaders of the Round Table movement, wished for it to be a World government with teeth, writing articles with H. G. Wells urging this. [1]
The emboldened section appears to be OR, based on interpretation of a primary source. Pincrete ( talk) 22:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
The guy was obviously a Keynesian. Quigley thought, because countries became more protectionist after WWI, an effort should have been made to set up a new financial system and ditch the gold standard, (when, in fact, protectionism had caused the war,) and, further blames the effort to restore the gold standard on a business cabal. In his own terms, he was willing to sacrifice savers and privilege those who sought to profit from the conflagration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.31.161.249 ( talk) 16:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Carroll Quigley contains discussion about the sources for Tragedy and Hope, the closely related book The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden, and the use of Tragedy and Hope by conspiracy theorists. The article on Tragedy and Hope would be improved by the inclusion of all this material. To avoid duplication, it seems easiest and best to merge at this time. Daask ( talk) 19:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
In the publisher's note of Anglo-American Establishment it says, "How Books in Focus came to discover the existence of the manuscript is a story in itself, which began on a beach in Lindos on the Mediterranean island of Rhodes, in 1967, eight years before the company was formed; but that story will have to be told at a later time." I think it's a bit odd that this book was published posthumously and how the manuscript was acquired isn't even detailed/known. The concern here is if the book was altered in one way or another.
The publisher's note is credited to Stephen A. Zarlenga and the publisher is Books in Focus Inc. I can't find many records of the publisher, all the information I have is from the New York Secretary of State's records of when the publisher formed and dissolved, but no mention of any names. On the publisher's note writer, Stephen A. Zarlenga, is it possible this was Stephen Zarlenga of the American Monetary Institute?
Additionally, are there any surviving family members that could provide more information? I'm already aware of carrollquigley.net, but I haven't been able to find what I've been looking for in that site. And another thing I noticed is this wikipedia page says Anglo-American Establishment has no sources, that's not true, it's Tragedy and Hope that doesn't have sources, not Anglo-American Establishment. DeodorantStick1568 ( talk) 15:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Carroll Quigley article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article stikes me as excessively laudatory (POV). Let's either make the tone more neutral or provide good cites for the adulation. -- 201.50.126.220 19:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Prof. Quigley was feared and despised by many Georgetown students, because of his arrogant manner and because a significant proportion of students (who were required to take his basic course) failed his examinations. He became famous instead of fading into history only because his name was mentioned by Bill Clinton - so let's get real and show both sides. 69.141.242.5 20:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Why source fail? 218.186.64.87 ( talk) 15:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The source fails because it is just some guy's website, please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources. According to WP:WELLKNOWN, if Clinton did, in fact, say these things then it should be quite easy for you to find a source that passes muster with WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BIO. Your constant reverting is tiresome, if you edit something into an article and it gets removed more than once then you should stop trying to add it and hit the talk page. Cheers. L0b0t ( talk) 16:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
This is the text of a paragraph that was hidden for some reason, and today was deleted. Placing it here as it has some context and resources which some editors may find useful at some point:
The documentary "The Capitalist Conspiracy: An Inside View of International Banking " by G. Edward Griffin in 1971 goes into detail as to how Dr. Quigley exposed the aforementioned conspiracy. It can be found on YouTube and Google Video. On page 950 of Tragedy and Hope, Quigley writes "I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for 20 years, and was permitted for 2 years in the early 1960s to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it, or most of its aims, and have for much of life been close to it and to many of its instruments. In general my chief difference of opinion is that is wishes to remain unknown". Quigley goes on to name the banking dynasties behind the conspiracy, which are Barring, Hambros, Lazard, Erlanger, Warburg (merged with Rockefeller and Chase Manhattan), Schroder, Selingman, Speyers, Mirabald, Mallet, Fould, Rothschild, and J.P. Morgan. It is noted that this conspiracy transcends race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, and is named only as "The International Bankers". The conspiracy is said to control and manipulate the money system of a nation while letting it appear to be controlled by the government. The net effect is to create money out of nothing, lend it to the goverment, and collect interest on it. Since the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, the United States money supply has been in the control of a private corporation, the Federal Reserve, whose board members are appointed solely by the President. Approximately half of the current board members are not US Citizens, yet they control US monetary policy.
- NJGW ( talk) 16:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, could someone find someone or any one who has the book and ask them to transfer it to electronic format since this dear book is so out of print...and yeah, give them the credit.
Thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.137.53.143 ( talk) 22:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I've added some new material to this article (see Carroll Quigley#Quigley and secret societies). It discusses Quigley's writing on secret societies, and the citation of Quigley as an authority on this topic by other authors.
Since this subject might generate disagreement, let me explain in advance why I think it satisfies Wikipedia's notability and neutral point of view policies.
First, notability. I recognize that there are many Quigley fans (including some who have edited this article and/or talk page) who feel that what makes Quigley important has nothing to do with his writing about secret societies. And certainly the most important fact about Quigley's personal history was that he was a professor at Georgetown's School of Foreign Service, which wasn't based on his writing on this topic.
However, a quick search online -- or just clicking this page's What Links Here link -- will show that Quigley is most frequently cited for his writing on this subject. Moreover, Quigley's own books have sold only a tiny fraction of what books such as None Dare Call It Conspiracy and Rule By Secrecy have sold; both of these were bestsellers. The John Birch Society has cited Quigley repeatedly for almost four decades, making not only his ideas but even his photograph familiar to their members.
So this appears to be the most well-publicized facet of Quigley's work, and it follows that by WP:NOTE it should be mentioned in the Quigley article.
But if the way that other writers cited Quigley on secret societies appears in the article, then fairness and WP:NPOV requires that the article also state what Quigley himself asserted about this subject. I have placed this first in the article, because that makes sense chronologically and also in terms of fairness.
Some remaining questions:
1. Is the current coverage fair and neutral? In particular, can I remove the "neutrality is disputed" notice at the top of the page?
2. The sources I have cited are all easily-available secondary sources, which can be found at most university libraries (and often online). I would like to have quoted Quigley's response to the books who cited him. But the only source I have found is this online audio interview [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], which appears to have been a private interview (not a radio interview) with a student or journalist, apparently made in 1975. In this interview, Quigley discusses how he learned of Cleon Skousen's and Gary Allen's books, and how he feels they distorted his views. Quigley asserts in this interview that the error of Skousen and Allen is to link all the conspiracies into one conspiracy, aiming at "world domination", when in fact the Rhodes-Milner conspiracy merely aimed at creating "a union of the Atlantic Bloc". But despite its relevance, it seems to violate WP:NOR to include information from this audio tape. Any opinions on this?
3. Is anyone aware of any responses to Quigley's theories by reputable historians, or in academic journals or reviews? If so, that might be another viewpoint which is worth representing.
4. Does anyone object to the terms "conspiracy theorist" or "conspiracy theory" themselves? Are these terms intrinsically POV or pejorative? If anyone feels that they are, please suggest an alternative term. My intent was to use terminology that was truly neutral, and which would not be offensive to those who believe in conspiracies, nor to those who scoff at the idea. — Lawrence King ( talk) 21:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Why does the very important book "tragedy and hope" doesn't have an article of itself?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.3.169 ( talk) 18:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I just reverted an IP who linked to the Quigley fan site which contains copyrighted material. I think it's better to link to the actual source or official archive of those instead of to the fan site. This brought to my attention that http://www.tboyle.net/Catholicism/Carroll_Quigley.html is also a copyright violation (the Post owns the rights to the Star archives). There's no digital archive of these, so unfortunately there's no link we can provide to readers, but the link is here if anyone wants to double check the source, or they can check the text on fan site as well. T34CH ( talk) 15:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Today (March 17, 2012) a non-registered editor added a massive amount of additional quotes from Quigley's books. [6] This follows the pattern of an edit from three months ago, also from an unregistered editor, adding a tremendous amount of additional quotes: [7]
The result of these two edits is a page that is far too long and which consists of far too many long quoted passages. This is not how a Wikipedia article should read.
If this prose is still under copyright, this is probably a copyright violation. If it is not under copyright, this prose should be added to Wikisource or some other repository, rather than this article.
If the editor(s) who added these quotes want to remove between 60% and 75% of the new material, please do so. It seems better for you to make the decision as to which parts of this new material is the most important. — Lawrence King ( talk) 19:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with this edit: [8]
At the bottom of the Quigley article there is a link to a PDF of the entire book. If you go to page 951, you will see the following sentence on lines 9-12 (emphasis added by me):
Brand died in 1963. Therefore it seems clear to me that this passage asserts that the activity of this organization was "greatly reduced" after 1963. Does anyone disagree? If this issue really is in dispute then I suppose by NOR it is right to delete this sentence. I didn't think this violated NOR because it seemed a clear statement in Tragedy & Hope that required no interpretation by us. — Lawrence King ( talk) 21:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I find the use of this term in this context to be nonsensical and disconcerting. After considerable search I found one scholarly article on this subject: http://www.anthonyflood.com/owensaquinasphilopluralism.htm The use of the term "pluralism" in reference to Thomism seems to me to be completely misguided and inappropriate in the context of Carroll Quiqley's book Tragedy and Hope (which I have read). I'd really like to see a reference on this.
Gretchenblitz ( talk) 19:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
His work emphasized "inclusive diversity" as a value of Western Civilization long before diversity became commonplace, and he denounced Platonic doctrines as an especially pernicious deviation from this ideal, preferring the pluralism of Thomas Aquinas.
''like this''
. —
Lawrence King (
talk) 02:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Carroll Quigley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
References to two articles were provided as evidence that mainstream academic historians are skeptical regarding Quigley's views on the Round Table Group. As it turns out, neither source appears to mention Quigley, so I have removed them. The references in question are:
Ted Goertzel (1994).
"Belief in Conspiracy Theories". Political Psychology. 15 (4): 733–744.
doi:
10.2307/3791630.
JSTOR
3791630. Retrieved 2009-02-26. {{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month=
(
help)
Seymour Martin Lipset and Earl Raab (1970). The Politics of Unreason. Harper & Row.
Laughing sandbags ( talk) 18:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Update: I deleted the assertion that "Quigley's views are particularly notable because the majority of reputable academic historians profess skepticism about his views on the Round Table group" as it was unsupported by the two references above that appeared to support it. I haven't so far been able to find any serious attempt to follow up on or debunk the theory Quigley presents in The Anglo-American Establishment. Laughing sandbags ( talk) 13:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
There is not even any reference saying Quigley was a conspiracy theorist, let alone the fact that, besides him being an accredited historian, his accounts of history is no more 'conspiratorial' than any other standard textbook accounts. Removing him from the conspiracy theorists category (please don't undo this before debating this here). — Wisdomtooth32 ( talk) 00:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Secondly, the removal of the tag was a vandalizing edit. I'm neutral on this, but I've restored it as a means of stabilizing an edit war. If you are going to remove it, you should all discuss it here, but I don't see the sense in arguing over reverting an edit made by someone trying to make a point. This should go to an RfC. I'm just keeping status quo to a non-vandalized form of the article. -- Owlsmcgee ( talk) 06:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
References
The consensus is to remove Category:Conspiracy theorists, which was done here.
What evidence is needed to support the "conspiracy theorist" tag? Seeking consensus to end an edit war between Jrheller1 and Tarage over the use of the term "conspiracy theorist" to describe Carroll Quigley. I came across this page after tracking down a vandal's history (banned user WisdomTooth32) and found the vandal had also removed the "conspiracy theorist" tag. (I think this is coincidental, and for the record, I don't believe Jrheller1 is a sock puppet of the vandal). I have laid out the case (in the talk page section directly above this one) for what I've found in academic searches, but would appreciate additional neutral editors weighing in on what evidence is needed to support the "conspiracy theorist" tag. I also hope that Jrheller1 will cease reverting the category until we generate an actual consensus. Thanks everyone! -- Owlsmcgee ( talk) 07:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I came for the RfC, but noticed this: Quigley argued that the Round Table groups were not World Government advocates but super-imperialists. He stated that they emphatically did not want the League of Nations to become a World Government. Yet Lionel Curtis, who, according to Quigley, was one of the leaders of the Round Table movement, wished for it to be a World government with teeth, writing articles with H. G. Wells urging this. [1]
The emboldened section appears to be OR, based on interpretation of a primary source. Pincrete ( talk) 22:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
The guy was obviously a Keynesian. Quigley thought, because countries became more protectionist after WWI, an effort should have been made to set up a new financial system and ditch the gold standard, (when, in fact, protectionism had caused the war,) and, further blames the effort to restore the gold standard on a business cabal. In his own terms, he was willing to sacrifice savers and privilege those who sought to profit from the conflagration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.31.161.249 ( talk) 16:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Carroll Quigley contains discussion about the sources for Tragedy and Hope, the closely related book The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden, and the use of Tragedy and Hope by conspiracy theorists. The article on Tragedy and Hope would be improved by the inclusion of all this material. To avoid duplication, it seems easiest and best to merge at this time. Daask ( talk) 19:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
In the publisher's note of Anglo-American Establishment it says, "How Books in Focus came to discover the existence of the manuscript is a story in itself, which began on a beach in Lindos on the Mediterranean island of Rhodes, in 1967, eight years before the company was formed; but that story will have to be told at a later time." I think it's a bit odd that this book was published posthumously and how the manuscript was acquired isn't even detailed/known. The concern here is if the book was altered in one way or another.
The publisher's note is credited to Stephen A. Zarlenga and the publisher is Books in Focus Inc. I can't find many records of the publisher, all the information I have is from the New York Secretary of State's records of when the publisher formed and dissolved, but no mention of any names. On the publisher's note writer, Stephen A. Zarlenga, is it possible this was Stephen Zarlenga of the American Monetary Institute?
Additionally, are there any surviving family members that could provide more information? I'm already aware of carrollquigley.net, but I haven't been able to find what I've been looking for in that site. And another thing I noticed is this wikipedia page says Anglo-American Establishment has no sources, that's not true, it's Tragedy and Hope that doesn't have sources, not Anglo-American Establishment. DeodorantStick1568 ( talk) 15:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)