Talk:Carroll Quigley

Excessively adulatory

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)

I chopped out most of the POV material. There may have been some useful information there, but it wasn't sourced. It's in the history should anybody want to fish it out. Crosbiesmith 08:59, 2 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)

First, to "get real" you need to back up this claim. Second, his work speaks for itself with or without him being a tutor to Clinton. And third, he clearly stated his contempt for arrogance amongst intellectuals and elitists and was of the opinion that most creativity and innovation came from the middle class. (From Tragedy and Hope) Hardly the statement of an arrogant person. Jcchat66 18:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As I have read all his books, I find that this article distastefully dwells on less significant ideas. Only one out of two books was mainly about an aristocratic elite of intellectuals, the Anglo-American Establishment, which I remembering as dry and boring. Tragedy and Hope overshadows the other two by far, but like his Evolution of Civilizations, was noted more for its history and development of civilizations, and the unique circumstances that created Western Civilization, and explains in great detail the mechanism of why civilizations fall. Any help on balancing this article would be greatly appreciated, not to mention fair to Quigley's brilliant insight of history. Jcchat66 06:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

To the last user who replied; have you read Weapons Systems and Political Stability? I would like an electronic copy of it if you have one...thanks

Samuel P. Huntington extensively quotes Quigley in his famous "Clash of Civilizations". That should be noteworthy as well. 80.137.93.225 (talk)

Why source fail?

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)

Text of deleted hidden paragraph

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)

I think that the paragraph above, in its current form, doesn't work in a Wikipedia article, primarily because it borders on the incoherent in parts: it begins by discussing not Quigley, but a 1971 documentary. It then refers to Tragedy and Hope without telling you what that is (FYI, it's a history book written by Quigley).

However, the subject matter buried in this paragraph does belong in this page. It is encyclopedic, for the following reason: There are many people who believe in various conspiracy theories. Many others criticize such beliefs, usually on the grounds that they are (supposedly) irrational and only plausible to the less educated. That is why Quigley is so important -- he was a professor at Harvard, Princeton, and Georgetown, who wrote a monumental 1000-page history of the twentieth century, and in that history book he asserts that certain conspiracies actually do exist and have significantly altered the course of world history, and indeed he claims to have examined the secret papers of one such group. Yet he mentions this claim casually on page 950. Any way you look at it, that's sort of bizarre. But what makes it encyclopedic is that therefore Quigley's book has become the ultimate proof text of many who believe in conspiracies. The passage from page 950 of his book has been quoted in dozens (hundreds?) of publications by the John Birch Society, for example.

Indeed, a google search for "Carroll Quigley" shows that almost all references to him on the internet focus on the conspiracy angle. So it's irresponsible for this angle to not be mentioned at all on Wikipedia, especially since sources are easily available (his book and also the books who cite it). — Lawrence King ^(talk) 07:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the above hidden paragraph about Dr. Carroll Quigley is quite appropriate, it is accurate and pertinent in every detail. Have You ever READ "Tragedy and Hope?" This book happens to be rare. Check on Amazon.com and you will find it goes for $400 to $1200, depending on condition. This book is rare, because in the 1966 printing, the Anglo-American Establishment didn't want the public to know its true agenda, so they suppressed the publication. It is no supprise to me that someone wants the above paragraph remove, because that individual knows the power of the information in "Tragedy and Hope." It reveals much about the true identity of the Council on Foreign Affairs, and the Federal Reserve. These organizations are the true masterminds behind American politics. Tragedy and Hope means this - its spells Tragedy for anyone today to change the "Established" power structure; they have intrenched themselves deeply in our political and financial systems; and it spells Hope for those in the "Establishment" because they are on their way to fulfilling their vision. Their Vision? Their vision was molded by Professor John Ruskin, a professor of fine arts from Oxford University. Anybody who wants to know more about that read in "Tragedy and Hope." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.92.132 (talk) 04:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

How did you come up with the figure of "$400 to $1200"? The book is still in print, and Amazon offers it for $36. Indeed, there's a copy of this book in the library of many American univerities.

Anyway, I still assert that the paragraph, as written above, cannot be used. Just to take one example: the paragraph above states that "... this conspiracy ... is named only as 'The International Bankers'." But this statement is not taken from Quigley's book, and is merely the opinion or interpretation of the person who wrote that paragraph. In fact, if you read Quigley's book it's very clear that the secret organization that he discusses is not a group of bankers. He refers to it as "an international Anglophile network" and "the Round Table Groups". Now, I recognize that many people believe this is part of, or identical to, or connected with, a cabal of bankers. But that's not what Quigley's book claims. If you like, the Carroll Quigley Wikipedia article could contain both (1) an explanation in of what his book actually says, and (2) a description of how Quigley's assertions are interpreted by various groups (e.g., the John Birch Society). But these two things must absolutely be kept separate. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 06:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have added some new material to this article which hopefully addresses the issues you wanted addressed. See below for details. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 21:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have not added it to the page, but I would just like to point out that if you read on to page 951 you will see Quigley making the connection to international bankers. From "Tragedy and Hope", pg. 951:

"Money for the widely ramified activities of this organization (Milner's Kindergarten, The Round Table) came originally from the associates and followers of Cecil Rhodes, chiefly from the Rhodes trust itself, and from wealthy associates such as the Beit Brothers, from Sir Abe Bailey, and (after 1915) from the Astor family. Since 1925 there have been substantial contributions from wealthy individuals and from foundations and firms associated with the international banking fraternity, especially the Carnegie United Kingdom Trust, and other organizations associated with J.P. Morgan, the Rockefeller and Whitney families, and the associates of Lazard Brothers and of Morgan, Grenfell, and Company."

Pg 952 makes the connection between the New York Round Table Group, J.P. Morgan, and the Council on Foreign Relations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pendleton16 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Very true. But I think that this passage can be interpreted in various ways. It can be read as showing that there is a fundamental unity between the bankers and the Milner/Round Table groups. Or it can be read as showing that they are two separate groups who are consciously allied. Or it can be read as showing that they worked together on certain limited goals (the passage doesn't explicitly say that the bankers gave money to the Group itself, but simply that the bankers helped to fund some of the "widely ramified activities" of the group).

On page 952, the link between Morgan and the CFR is clear, but at the same time it seems to me that Quigley stops short of identifying the CFR as simply a branch of the Round Table Group; its origins lie in that, and at one point he calls it a front group, but at other points he seems to consider it to be significantly different, implying that the CFR is closer to Morgan than to the English group.

I think that Quigley's text here is ambiguous, and therefore it can't be the place of Wikipedia to interpret it. Instead, we should simply state how others have interpreted it. Thus the page points out that Skousen and Allen have both interpreted Quigley's text as showing a unity between these groups. Does that seem satisfactory? My main worry is whether the text implies that Skousen and Allen are being silly in their interpretation -- that would violate NPOV. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 23:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone know an electronic edition of Weapons System and Political Stability?

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)

Coverage of Quigley and secret societies: Notability and NPOV

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?

That interview is almost certainly with Rudy Maxa of the Washington Post. The article he wrote is at carrollquigley.net, and I have added a quote from it.--Grandthefttoaster (talk) 06:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks! — Lawrence King ^(talk) 00:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

I'm going ahead and removing the POV notice. Again, if anyone objects, please put it back or speak up here! — Lawrence King ^(talk) 03:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Why tragedy and hope dont have an article of itself?

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)

Probably because its importance is not widely acknowledged. For example, On the Origin of Species has its own page, separate from that of its author. Daniel Boorstin's The Discoverers (a bestseller) has a separate page, but Boorstin's The Republic of Technology and Democracy and its Discontents do not.

Moreover, Tragedy & Hope has many connections with The Anglo-American Establishment, so it makes more sense to keep them both on Quigley's page than to have two separate pages, one for each book. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 03:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright issues

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)

Massive new additions

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 finally remembered where I'd seen this kind of editing before. It's the banned editor User:Blastikus. He's done similar things on various biographies; for example:

• Eustace Mullins
• Carroll Quigley
• Norman Dodd
• Michael A. Hoffman II
• Douglas Reed
• Benjamin H. Freedman

He is apparently also editing as User:Theworldinstrument, something I also just realized. In general, he inserts large amounts of quotes from books attempting to justify various right-wing and/or antisemitic conspiracy theories. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on this, Jayjg. I had wondered if the Dec 2011 edits and the March 2012 edits were from the same anonymous editor, but I didn't suspect he had a pedigree on Wikipedia. Carroll Quigley is a figure who's important in "mainstream" scholarship and in "fringe" scholarship, and so it takes a lot of work to keep this article balanced and NPOV. There are plenty of POV treatments of Quigley on the internet; we don't need yet another one here. Besides, once an article is absurdly long full of quotes, nobody will read it anyway. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 16:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

That was one of the problems with all of his edits; on top of the Original Research and NPOV violations, they made the articles unreadable. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

"Greatly reduced"

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 was the last survivor of the "Kindergarten"; since his death, the greatly reduced activities of the organization have been exercised largely through the Editorial Committee of The Round Table magazine under Adam Marris.

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)

The "Pluralism" of Aquinas

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)

There's been a "citation needed" tag on this sentence for more than four years, and nobody has supplied a reference. And like you, I have no idea what this sentence means:

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.

Thomas Aquinas is generally thought of as an Aristotelian, but others have emphasized the fact that Aquinas relies on a great variety of sources. Perhaps that's what the writer means by "inclusive diversity". But if it is, then I don't know what to make of the claim that diversity has now "become commonplace", because reliance on Aristotle and other classical sources has not become commonplace since Quigley's era. On the other hand, if "diversity" is being used in the most common contemporary sense (see Diversity (politics), Diversity (business), and Cultural diversity), then the connection to Plato and Aquinas seems mysterious to me. So I have deleted it. If anyone believes it is true, feel free to restore it, but please clarify its meaning and give a reference when you do! — Lawrence King ^(talk) 21:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see the revised version, with references. Throughme (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! Your additions to the page are interesting. I have been following your tremendous work on the Tragedy and Hope page, and while I'm not a stickler for the WP:NOR rule, I think this kind of material belongs more on the book page than on the biography page. As a general rule, any "major conclusions" that you are summarizing from Quigley's books without any secondary sources should be very brief and based on completely unambiguous passages in these books. Also, book titles should be in italics; you can create italics with two single-quote marks on each side, ''like this''. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 02:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't see reliable sources on Tragedy and Hope and I'm fine if someone wants to remove or shorten this section. I can actually add specific quotes from the book to back up each statement. I also realize that the summary on the Tragedy and Hope page is becoming too long, and hope to replace it with a shorter summary (and put the long summary elsewhere). Throughme (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The reference for Quigley, Plato and Aquinas is by Harry J Hogan in the foreword to Evolution of Civilizations, p18: "In Evolution [of Civilizations], Quigley describes the basic ideology of Western civilization as expressed in the statement, "The truth unfolds in time through a communal process." Therefore, Quigley saw the triumph in the thirteenth century of the moderate realism of Aquinas over dualistic exaggerated realism derived from Platonism as the major epistemologic triumph that opened up Western civilization. People must constantly search for the "truth" by building upon what others have learned. But no knowledge can be assumed to be complete and final. It could be contradicted by new information received tomorrow. In epistemology, Quigley always retained his belief in the scientific method. Therefore, he saw Hegel and Marx as presumptuous, in error, and outside the Western tradition in their analysis of history as an ideologic dialectic culminating in the present or immediate future in a homeostatic condition." Throughme (talk) 12:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130901040610/http://paw.princeton.edu/memorials/24/79/index.xml to http://paw.princeton.edu/memorials/24/79/index.xml

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Deleted references

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)

Conspiracy Theorist

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)

There is literally a section called "Citations of Quigley in exposés of purported conspiracies." He proposed a theory of a conspiracy re: the round table society. He is a conspiracy theorist. -- Owlsmcgee (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

You are misreading this section. What that section says is that actual conspiracy theorists used his book in their own writings. In that section, Quigley is quoted saying this: "Skousen's book is full of misrepresentations and factual errors. He claims that I have written of a conspiracy of the super-rich who are pro-Communist and wish to take over the world and that I'm a member of this group. But I never called it a conspiracy and don't regard it as such." Jrheller1 (talk) 06:25, 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)

I changed the category to "conspiracy theories" since Quigley was not a conspiracy theorist himself but rather his works were used by conspiracy theorists. Jrheller1 (talk) 07:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I have watchlisted this page while patrolling a vandal's edit history and had no prior interest in it. However, I do see there is a slow-motion edit war occurring. I find the "conspiracy theory" tag inaccurate, as Mr. Quigley is not a "theory," he is a person. That he is a person who has argued that the world is heavily influenced by a secret society of specific, named elites, and that these elites have not acknowledged it, certainly qualifies him as a conspiracy theorist. This isn't to say whether that conspiracy theory is plausible or not - it's certainly soft-core, from what the article describes, to say that rich people have influence on politics and work together to advocate for policy positions. But he is citing a specific organization with a specific history, giving that organization credit for historical events, and stating that it operates in secrecy. What is that, by any other name, than a conspiracy theory? That said, I also have to wonder if there are outside sources that share this opinion of his ideas, because that is most important. The University of Minnesota Press (academic, reliable source) book "Conspiracy Theories" discusses Quigley's contribution re: theories around Bill Clinton, but does not refer to Quigley as a conspiracy theorist himself (it does not appraise Quigley's claims at all).

A scholarly research project which was rewarded with a degree from Oxford University offers a summary of views of the Round Table society, contrasting the work of three researchers, Quigley amongst them; it mentions that his ideas seemed to be unsupported and that the other independent researchers were contrasted with his as offering a more sober accounting of the group's actual sphere of influence, which largely extended toward publishing a magazine dedicated to public affairs. By contrast, Quigley believed this group was "unquestionably the most influential group in British political life for at least 30 years," and in an (albeit unpublished) article he wrote that they were "the most significant aberrant influence on the foreign policy of Chamberlain and Halifax", and that the group "favored a large measure of 'colonial appeasement' as a step towards 'partnership' with Nazi Germany." (all from May's text). This belief seems to be held in isolation from other scholars who have researched the group.

I find very few academic resources writing about the presence of the round table society or the "society of the elect," or Carroll Quigley at all, to be honest, so I would say that this speaks to a lack of support for his claims among academics and researchers; this leads me to consider the "conspiracy theorist" tag is well grounded as a reflection of broad, academic consensus, which is what Wikipedia strives to reflect. --Owlsmcgee (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

References

I just read the three obituaries (from Washington Post, American Historical Review, and Washington Star) at [9]. None of them mentioned "conspiracy theories", let alone called Quigley a "conspiracy theorist". So there is no good reason to put this article in either category: the most authoritative sources (e.g., American Historical Review) don't associate him with either. The insistence on putting this article in the category "conspiracy theorists" is bizarre. Jrheller1 (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC on use of Conspiracy Theorist

The consensus is to remove Category:Conspiracy theorists, which was done here.

Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

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)

• Not a conspiracy theorist. Seems he influenced some, but wasn't one. What do you need in order to state in Wiki's voice he is one? A strong RS (and preferably 2-3) stating unequivocally that he is one (e.g. in NYT, WaPo, serious scholar saying "The conspiracy theorist Quigley....". Not regarded by some. Not influenced. A clear statement.Icewhiz (talk) 10:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
• Conspiracy Theorist Pretty much in agreement with your findings above. You don't need to have an RS saying "This is true", having RS saying that some think it is enough. --Tarage (talk) 10:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
• Does Not Meet Criteria - Tag seems inappropriate in multiple ways.

First, the category states its criteria. Has to be one of specified Conspiracy theories, things like UFOs or Moon Landing Hoax folks, and the person has to be a noted proponent. While Quigley was a believer, the topic just is a nonentity and he was not an active proponent -- he mentioned them in a book, but basically he was a teacher.

Second, WP:V is not satisfied by this WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Personal argument constructions here are not an acceptable substitute for external RS. The whole approach simply seems wasting time and ... actually tends to convince the other way.

Third, WP:LABEL would seem to apply and require multiple or even predominance of RS use the label explicitly before we would apply it, and even then we should phrase it as representing common views rather than as statement of fact. Since the article does not represent him as such, then putting on the category seems an obvious error. (p.s. And I think it obvious that the article could not support such content by looking at RS so don't try adding it to retro-justify the label).

Cheers, Markbassett (talk) 03:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I did the research to try to see if I could find a conclusion either way. When there wasn't one that satisfied the criteria, and a third-party edit war continued, I called for an RfC. I don't think I'm "wasting time" by trying to constructively settle disputes on Wikipedia. As for convincing anyone of anything "either way," I didn't have any intention, I had an open question that wasn't settled after looking into the matter. I'm presenting what I found and the arguments for and against. Your admonitions about adding content to justify the label are misplaced, and, frankly, kind of rude. -- Owlsmcgee (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Does Not Meet Criteria per Mark Bassett and the lack of RS describing him thus. Pincrete (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• No, not adequately supported by the sourcing presented here. He may have been a conspiracy theorist, but the current sourcing is too thin and indirect, and the reasoning for the tag ventures over into original research. The fact that conspiracy theorists cite him is too indirect, especially when we have an opposing statement from Quigley himself. If more sourcing is found which more directly describes Quigley as a conspiracy theorist, ping me and I may reconsider my !vote. Alsee (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Consensus seems clear. I'm going to remove the tag. - Owlsmcgee (talk) 04:39, 5 February 2018 (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.

OR?

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.

The emboldened section appears to be OR, based on interpretation of a primary source. Pincrete (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Keynesian

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)

Proposed merge of Tragedy and Hope into Carroll Quigley

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)

Oppose, as the there are several non-trivial reviews (or even books) on Tragedy and Hope. I've added some to the external links. Klbrain (talk) 09:48, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Closing, given the uncontested objection and no support with stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 09:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Authenticity of Anglo-American Establishment

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)