Talk:William Guy Carr/Archive 1

POV violations

There are so many things wrong with this article, it is hard to know where to begin... First, Commander Carr died in 1959, so I have corrected statements such as "His investigations and studies have taken him... " to "His investigations and studies took him"... etc.

Beyond the tense issue, I noticed that the article was linked to the Freemasonry Page. Reading between the lines, I gather that Commander Carr might have been an Anti-Mason of some kind. However, as the article is written, there is no mention of this (indeed no mention of Freemasonry at all). Thus, there is no justification for the link. I have removed it for the time being. Either state the connection, or leave out the link (and I would think that the correct link would be to the Anti-freemasonry page.)

Then there is the question of explaining Carr's views. It is stated that Carr studied "the International Conspiracy" ... ok, from the context I would assume that this conspirasy has something to do with Bolshevism, but this is not explained. The same goes for "Evil Forces" later in the article... what are these Evil Forces Carr wanted to inform people about.

Finally, I would have to say that this article has the potential for serious POV violations. The only thing saving it at the moment is the fact that the article is so poorly written, it does not really make clear what that POV is against (Bolshevism? Freemasonry? annonomous Evil Forces?)

It either needs a major re-write or a deletion. Blueboar 14:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Semitic

I have removed the "Anti-semitic people" category from Carr's entry. It's true that Carr did point to certain Jews as being involved in coordinating world events, but this did not make him categorically anti-Semitic.

I now have sources that confrirm he was anti-Semitic (see actual version), Eristik 04:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Mazzini Letter"

I have removed the material on the Albert Pike plot to start Three World Wars... it has been proven to be part of a hoax. No one has ever claimed to have seen the original of this letter. Its provenaunce seems to take on the aspects of an urban legend... along the lines of "I heard it from this guy who says that his cousin's wife's hairdresser knew someone who's university room-mate saw the letter."

All we do know is that the letter was frist published in 1925 by Cardinal Caro y Rodriguez of Santiago, Chili (hardly an independant, neutral source, as the Catholic Church has been Anti-masonic for centuries). Carr took his material from Cardinal Rodriquez, excerpting in "Pawns of the Game"... but, importantly, issued a retraction in his later book: "Satan, Prince of this World". In that book Carr wrote: "The Keeper of the Manuscripts (at the British Museum) recently informed the author that this letter is NOT catalogued in the British Museum Library. It seems stange that a man of Cardinal Rodriguez's knowledge should have said it was."

This entire letter is an anti-masonic urban legend. And in case you have trouble realizing this... Pike could not have said that the Second World War would have involved fascists... he lived in the second half of the 1800s, and fascism did not gain its name until the 1920s. There is no way he could have written this letter. Blueboar 21:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not exactly "proof", now is it ? After all, Zionism apparently didn't exist until around the 1920s - yet certain people were talking about it a whole century before that! Communism didn't exist until the 20's either - and yet others spoke of that concept long before it was widely known about. So it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that Pike was privy to knowledge the rest of the world knew nothing about. That's the whole point...! ;-)

Um... both Zionism and communism existed at least as early as the mid-1800s (Marx wrote his Manifesto in 1848 and the first organized Zionist movement was founded in the 1860s)... if you are going to shout conspiracy, at least get your facts right. Blueboar 13:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still about the "Mazzini" letter...

Regardless of the veracity of the letter, the discussion of this letter is arguably Carr's most enduring legacy. Therefore, I think it merits inclusion in any encyclopedic entry about Carr.

There are several inaccuracies and questionable assertions in your discussion above. First, you state that the letter has been "proven to be part of a hoax." Can you prove that the letter was hoaxed? If Pike didn't write it, can you prove that no one wrote it? Who exactly perpetrated this hoax?

You also claim to "know" that the letter was first published by Rodriguez. Can you tell me the title of the book and the page where this letter is published by Rodriguez ? It's true that Carr (or his son, who edited "Satan, Prince of This World" after Carr's death) claimed to learn about the letter from Rodriquez. However, I have not yet seen any discussion of this letter by Rodriguez anywhere.

Finally, Carr's footnote in "Satan, Prince of This World" is hardly a "retraction." Rather, Carr is expressing his doubt that Rodriguez was making it all up.

It is possible that the letter and the plan for Three World Wars is a complete fabrication. For example, the plan for Three World Wars may have been some kind of Cold War-era misinformation in which Carr was a witting or unwitting accomplice.

It is also true that Carr's overall credibility suffers in part because he repeated certain anti-Masonic tales that can be traced back to Leo Taxil's elaborate hoaxes.

Nonetheless, the alleged plan for Three Torld Wars is a critical item of information in any discussion of Carr. It merits examination, discussion and investigation by a wider audience, rather than preliminary censorship by persons representing and/or protecting freemasonry. ~JG

Argument for keeping this page (on freemasory), lack of sources

IMO the main content of this page, an alleged conspiracy to program 3 world wars, is notable -- if only because if it were true, it would be really huge.
It may not be necessary to repeat the entire argument, a short version with references might suffice
It's also possible that Carr himself is not notable and that it could be referenced under Pike
The reason this tale is so fascinating is that it seems to fit events, starting in the 1890's and the pieces falling into place around 1917, a few years before the 1925 mention in a book.
The reason it is interesting now is we are now in the midst of the 3rd part or war of the prophecy taking place, the war between the west and Islam over Zionism. So even if it was made up in 1925, that is a prediction 80 years ahead -- pretty good!
Sounds notable to me.
Where is the deletion discussion page ?
I agree with the previous writer as regards censorship which is alien to the concept of an encyclopedia. However, I think freemasonry is a red herring here, perhaps a false lead. There are factions within the masons, they are not monolithic. Specifically, most of the founding fathers who set up the American democracy were masons ; in response, the British set up the Scottish Rite as a counterrevolutionary clique, or so I have been told.
Anyway, the secret society format is a perfect cover for state intelligence operations. If there is such a conspiracy then the obvious power pulling the strings would be the divide and conquer department of the good old British Empire, who, after all, set up the Palestine Mandate, a key piece of the Three World Wars puzzle. Albert Pike and Mazzini have been alleged to be British agents, Mazzini in charge of destabilizing continental rivals, Pike as part of the British instigation of the Civil War and support for the slave confederacy.
A great yarn and highly thought-provoking in light of current crises. JPLeonard 07:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you get your information, but much of it is completely wrong. For example, the British did not set up the Scottish Rite. Most of the degrees that formed the rite originated in France (well before the Revolution). These degrees were exported to the US shortly after the Revolution, where they were compiled by two seperate groups that today form the Scottish Rite in the US (a - Northern Jurisdiction and b - Southern Jurisdiction). The rite as it is in England derived from the US Northern Jurisdiction. So to say that the British set up Scottish Rite as a counter-revolutionary clique is simply incorrect. (see: Scottish Rite for more info.])

As to censorship.... my concerns for this article have nothing to do with censorship, they have to do with scholarship. This article is seriously lacking in sources. Furthermore, it repeats conjecture as if it were proven fact. If it is not to be deleted, it needs serious work. Blueboar 18:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this person notable?

I proded this as being non-notable, and someone removed the prod tag saying that this person is more than just a consipiracy nut... that he is notable for having an impact on other conspiracy theorists. Fine. If that is indeed what makes him notable, why is there only one short mention of this? This article is primarily a quote from one of his books and a brief refutation of about the source used to create the quote. If he had such a large impact on conspiracy theory, shouldn't that impact take center stage?

Also... work needs to be done on citations and references. Blueboar 17:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

As I have not recieved any reply to my comments above, nor has the article been edited to add the information requested... the article is now formally nominated for AfD. Blueboar 16:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New cites....

OK... we are finally getting some attempt to add material to back the idea that Carr had an impact on conspiracy theorists. I do have some problems ... the first is that the cites are to webpages that don't meet WP:RS or WP:FRINGE. To pass muster with these guidelines we need "MAINSTREAM" sources that discuss Carr and his impact. 2) so far, the cites don't really talk about Carr and his theories ... they just accept his theory as fact and then expand on them. However, I will take the attempt at good faith and will withdraw the AfD nom to give time to locate and add the kind of citation that is needed. Blueboar 02:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WG Carr studied by a french philosopher

Carr has had a real influence on conspiracy theorists during the late 50 years as we can read it in a recent book by fr:Pierre-André Taguieff. I'm adding a new reference to the article and I'm working on a french version of it. I think this article should not be deleted; hopefully I will add some official information on it. I found out that Carr was an active anti-Communist in Toronto and his books on submarine wars are still important today. I can confirm that he was an anti-Semite writer, an anti-Mason and an active right wing activist in Canada from the 30's to his death. Some further information about this can be found at the National library of Canada (Ottawa) [1]. 05:25, 13 February 2007, from french Wiki. Or 216.246.245.166 in english (now Eristik).

To Danski14: please read the new information before erasing it.

216.246.245.166, 09:05 pm, 13 February 2007.

This is great... finally someone has added a reliable source. But it leaves me with some big questions... As Tanguieff's book/monograph/whatever is in french, I have no way of checking that he is indeed saying what the article claims he said. I am not challenging it... just asking for verification. Is there an English translation? Also, I would like to know if Tanguieff simply mentions Carr in passing, or whether he goes into any detail about Carr's influence. The article needs to discuss what Tanguieff says about Carr, at the moment it simply says that Tanguieff talks about him. Blueboar 15:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STILL no mainstream sources

It is now March ... a month after I posted this for AfD... and we still do not have any mainstream sources that discuss Carr's impact on conspiracy theory. We haven't really had much in the way of non-mainstream sources either... only two citations that show two other Fringe conspriacy writers are awair of Carr's claims. Both here and at the AfD, a whole lot of people asked to save the article by stating that Carr had some sort of huge impact on conspiracy theories... I withdrew the AfD based on these statements and asked at that time for this information be added to the article. I will give it one more month... but if this information is not added to the article I will renew the AfD. Blueboar 17:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now it is nearing mid-April. We have had one new source added... unfortunately it is in French, and the editor who added it tells us absoulutely nothing about what the source says about Carr (only that the author discusses him). Does the book discuss Carr's impact on Conspiracy Theories? Does it disparage his claims? Does it simply mention his name in passing? We don't know. Not what I was hoping for.

Oh... and we had one editor who came by and took out almost every reference to the term "conspiracy theory". An interesting edit, given the claims that Carr has had such a big influence conspiracy theory in general. I reverted. Blueboar 15:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on it

Dear Blueboar, please hold, I'm working on Carr's case. Even if I have no personal interest in his work, I read about him in Taguieff's book and I'm slowly adding information. As you will see in the works I added, Carr is really a notorious conspiracy theorist. There a many editions of his books and even translations. His first writings on submarine were also very popular in the 30's and the 40's. I'm still working on it... Thanks for waiting before suppressing this article, I spent some honest time on it, Eristik 23:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Taguieff (I just saw your other comment ; I didn't have my user name at the time) : Unfortunately the book ([See]) has not been translated yet. As I will try to show in the article, Pierre-André Taguieff (a famous specialist of racism, antisemitism and far right politics) studies the main books of Carr (Pawns in the game, Satan.., etc.) in about 25 pages. The book includes a comment on several pages of Pawns in the game where he shows in footnotes all the "conspiracy culture" that Carr's refering to : topics going far back to Augustin Barruel (explaining the French Revolution with a Freemason conspiracy) and John Robison (same but Irish) ; Carr's misinterpretation of the Illuminati and the false story of Albert Pike (he has nothing to do with Satanism, this story wa invented by the French anti-Mason Léo Taxil).

He also shows the links with the Antisemite propaganda book Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Taguieff is the main specialist of this hoax along with the English historian Norman Cohn) ; he shows the overinterpretation (hypercritic) of the proof of the Illuminati plot with the American dollar (the famous eye) made by Carr. It is also interesting to see that Carr influenced contemporary conspiracy theorists like Myron Fagan, Jan van Helsing, David Ike and the New World Order theories. A very interesting and serious study (600 p.). I will try to work again soon on Carr with more references. I apologize for not being perfectly fluent in english writing, Eristik.

Some links :

Article almost meets the deletion concerns

I have no problem with waiting a bit longer if someone is actually working on adding citations to show that Carr did indeed have an influence on conspiracy theory. In fact, the article is almost to a point where I can say my concerns have been met. Thank you for the work you have done so far. Please keep it going.

On Taguieff... perhaps you could provide some pertinant quotes (in French with your own parenthetical translation?)... it would help. Blueboar 12:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I will provide pertinent quotes as soon as possible. I just made the french article for Carr and linked it to this one Eristik 14:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

About the interpretation of the american dollar bill

Thank you for your information in the part on "The Eye of providence". I know he did'nt invent the "M-A-S-O-N" theory but the french ed. of The Conspiration... includes this image in the book (without saying wether Carr invented it or not). I'm still working on translations of quotes of Taguieff and I hope the article seems better to you now. Yours Eristik 18:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Carr didn't invent it, or at least discuss it in some detail, it should not be in an article about him and his work. What subsequent people may or may not have added is not for this article. By the way, did you know that the trick with the star doesn't actually work? Most of the drawings (including the one you used) have to use a very lopsided and irregular star and even then it does not quite work. If you use a true star of David (two intertwined equalateral triangles - which, according to the theory, would have been important to Masons), you actually end up with the vertecies pointing between letters and to the large blank space between words. Blueboar 19:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting observation which shows how this star theory is an overinterpretation phenomena. I may not have been clear but Carr discussed this topic in Pawns in the game (reprint, 2005, p. IX-XIII). He says that in 1933, Roosevelt ordered to print the symbol (he says the "masonic sign" on the back of the dollar (on the left). For Carr, since this was at the moment of the New Deal (another way of saying "Novus Ordum Secularum" for Carr), this meant that the US govt was controled by a "Communist-Illuminatist" supposed to establish a luciferian World government under the influence of the so called Synagogue of Satan (that I know nothing of...) (information also in Taguieff, p. 35-36) Eristik 00:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not challenging the fact that Carr tied the Great Seal to the Illuminati and stuff like that... Im only saying that the part about of the letters spelling MASON seems to have been added to the legend after Carr. Thus it should not be included in an article about him.

Article should be on the "man" rather than his writings

Question... do we really need to go into so much detail about each and every one of Carr's theories? The article (to my mind) should be more about the man, and less about his theories. I'm not saying we don't discuss the theories at all... but I think we could summarize the theories somewhat ... and provide links to articles that discuss the theories in more detail (I know that several articles exist on these theories). Blueboar 12:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, my main concern was to convince you that Carr deserved an article in WP. I suggest - if you believe the article now deserves to be on WP - you abandon the demand of deletion and you can fix the article in a way that it concerns mainly the "man". I truly believe it is important to know who we are dealing with in conspiracy theories and I think we have reach a point of fair objectity about Carr. To you, Eristik 20:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing the Three World Wars quote

And by the way, I think we should get rid of the quote about the "Three World Wars". It is interesting to mention the theory, but I don't believe we need such a long quote. What do you think of this?

Totally agree with that. We should summarize his theories... and concentrate on discussing the impact they had on conspiracy theory in general.

As for my demands... given that you have been doing such great work while facing the threat of deletion, I am not sure if I should abandon my demand... I don't want you to stop! But, seriously, I do have to say that my concerns are significantly reduced... Yes, enough for me to back away from deletion. I would now put it in the Keep but Clean Up category. Would you be willing to continue working with me on this? Blueboar 20:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, it will be a pleasure to keep on working on the page with you. I still have some information to add and I promess to take care of it as soon as possible ; I have no personal interest in Carr (I just have been studying conspiracy theorists for a couple years, that's why I know about him) but since I'm a French Canadian, I feel it's important to have pertinent information on him. He had an influence on other people in the province of Québec (I will also eventually try to write on this). Thank you for the "Keep but clean up" and feel free to take care of the "Three world war" part and the information you believe is superfluous about the theory of the "Eye of providence" (even what I wrote, it does'nt matter, we're looking for info on the "man"). Eristik 22:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may find this of intrest before we move on... Carr claims that Franklin, Adams and Jefferson put Illuminati symbols on the dollar... thissite talks about the seal they actually came up with (which Congress rejected). More of a Biblical influence than anything the illuminati would come up with, I would say. Blueboar 19:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Focusing on Carr and not on claims

I have done a little bit of deleting and editing... to focus the article more on Carr and his influence and less on each of his claims. For example, I re-worded the section on Pawns... taking out the quotes and turning it into a paraphrase of what is said. I also removed the stuff about the back of the dollar bill. It is certainly appropiate to talk about the fact that he believed that the dollar contains Illuminati symbols (especially if he was the first to claim this)... but I don't think we need to go into detail about the claim itself... it is dicussed in several other articles that we can link to. Blueboar 14:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK for the no consensus, but don't forget what you said erlier : "I would now put it in the Keep but Clean Up category. Would you be willing to continue working with me on this? Blueboar 20:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)", I now believe the article meets the WP standards more than about 70% of the articles..., let's not be too zélé, Eristik 20:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. My only objection to the edit on the AfD result template was that such things are "official", and thus should not be changed. However, I would agree that it is outdated. Perhaps it should be archived (along with a lot of this page). Blueboar 11:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]