Talk:Round Table movement

message: Just came across this page and found it had an NPOV tag but no explanation of it on the talk page: I just wondered what the problems with the page are exactly; looking at the page history it seems a lot of content was deleted when the tag was put up, being labelled "conspiracy crap" by User:FCYTravis. I'd like to see what the objections with the page are before I start to contribute to it a little. Driller thriller 19:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV?

message: If these groups hold meetings, decide upon plans, have powerful memberships, and have had many decades to accomplish their goals, we must know what the names of the round table groups are as they exist in each member country.  When this is known, further investigation can take place by Wikipedia users from those places so that further information about them can be written into this and related articles.  The separate agendas might uncover reasons why things are the way they are today due in part to the actions of these people?  Public school systems seem to avoid this fascinating and important history possibly for reasons other than budgetary issues.  Oldspammer (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are the names of the various countries' round table groups? 

message: It would appear the proper name for this organization was the 'Round Table Movement', see for example the Historical Dictionary of the British Empire, .  I will move this shortly, unless there are objections, and add the appropriate references. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Round Table Movement

message: It's not necessary to have a list of every current member.  A Wikipedia article should be an overview of the topic.  If the reader is very unlikely to have heard of an individual, listing that individual's name here tells them nothing.  Only individuals notable in their own right should be listed. I will remove these in due course.  - Crosbiesmith (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thing is, nobody got to be a member without being "notable". The fact that some of the members do not yet have their own article does not in it self imply that they are not notable. However, if you have concrete reason to believe that some of them are not, I do agree on removal. IandI (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst agreeing that there should not be a list of every member there has ever been I have recreated a list of a few notable members, delineating between those at the beginning and those at the end of the century--JHumphries (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Current organisation and membership

message: This article is false in it's assertions regarding Cecil Rhodes.
Per WP:V, The Last Will and Testament of Cecil John Rhodes is here for verification: 
It states (p. 73):
"What an awful thought it is that if we had not lost America, or if even now we could arrange with the present members of the United States Assembly and our House of Commons, the peace of the world is secured for all eternity. We could hold federal parliament five years at Washington and five at London. The only thing feasible to carry this idea out is A secret one (society) gradually absorbing the wealth of the world to be devoted to such an object. There is Hirsch with twenty millions, very soon to cross the unknown border, and struggling in the dark to know what to do with his money; and so one might go on ad infinitum."
He also states (p. 74):
"It would have been better for Europe if Napoleon had carried out his idea of Universal Monarchy; he might have succeeded if he had hit on the idea of granting self government to the component parts. Still, I will own tradition, race, and diverse languages acted against his dream; all these do not exist as to the present English speaking world, and apart from this union is the sacred duty of taking the responsibility of the still uncivilized parts of the world. The trial of these countries who have been found wanting---such as Portugal, Persia, even Spain---and the judgment that they must depart, and of course, the whole of the South American republics. "
He continues:
"What a scope and what a horizon of work for the next two centuries, the best energies of the best people in the world; perfectly feasible, but needing an organization, for it is impossible for one human atom to contemplate anything, Much less such an idea requiring the devotion of the best souls of the next 200 years. There are three essentials--- (1) The plan duly weighed and agreed to (2) The first organization (3) The seizure of the wealth necessary."
This is also noted in the NYT: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F00811FB395412738DDDA00894DC405B828CF1D3Pottinger's cats (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Last Will and Testament of Cecil John Rhodes 

message: "believed that the elite of the British empire had an undue influence on the American elite, a not uncommon theme in Irish American politics of the early twentieth century."
British subversion and attempts to compromise the status of the United States as a sovereign republic is not just pointed out by Irish Americans. It is also a realisation held by a wide array of people from Isolationists and America Firsters (typically descended from Scots-Irish and other Protestants who consider themselves to be American patriots and remember what the British did in 1812), German Americans (the largest European ethnic group in the United States) are also not a fan of British agents of influence dragging the US into two world wars against their ancestral land. The most famous Brit exposer Lyndon LaRouche would appear to be French American, not Irish. Many more recent immigrants from ex-British colonies (particularly of Muslim background or Africans) are also well aware of the nature of the beast. In reality, British influence in US politics is an actual thing (President Bill Clinton is a Rhodes Scholar for Christ-sakes? MI6's Christopher Steele created a fake dossier on President Donald Trump for opposing British Imperialist neoliberal economics and for not wanting a war with Russia? The Five Eyes Agreement?) this sourpuss Brit cheap shot at Quigley ("irrational Irish paranoia") needs rewriting. Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange anti-Irish bollocks in Quigley section