Talk:Carroll Quigley

message: Why source fail?
218.186.64.87 (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why source fail? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Anyone know an electronic edition of Weapons System and Political Stability?

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Coverage of Quigley and secret societies:  Notability and NPOV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Copyright issues 

message: I disagree with this edit: 
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)
thread_title:  "Greatly reduced" 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
Laughing sandbags (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted references 

message: 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.https://www.theatlantic.com/issues/19jan/leag119.htm 
The emboldened section appears to be OR, based on interpretation of a primary source. Pincrete (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Keynesian 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Closing, given the uncontested objection and no support with stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 09:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Tragedy and Hope]] into [[Carroll Quigley]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Authenticity of Anglo-American Establishment