Talk:Carroll Quigley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 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)