Talk:Rothschild family/Archive 3

Request for comment

 * 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.


 * Requesting additional comments as User:Johnbod clearly can't read his own comments, which justified initial two reversion through "undue weight" argument that claimed previous articles didn't demonstrate-longstanding relationship. He is now reverting because five decades is apparently not long enough to suit him. Can we get some moderation please? Seems wikipedia editors love changing the goalposts when their original claim (argument:undue weight, rationale: no timeframe mentioned in first two insertions) has been debunked. And don't you dare lie like your hero Rothschilds, User:Johnbod. You said undue weight, tried to spin the concept I was a conspiracy theorist, to which I produced an article that CONCLUSIVELY states the relationship is AT LEAST fifty years. Not only did you not response (regardless of the three-revert warning), you then choose to revert again even though I produced a new source that met the requirements. … unsigned, by 31.208.7.22 15:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, let's have comments on this crank, who wants to add something to the infobox that is not mentioned in the article (where it might be worth a carefully sourced line or two), and has changed his wild assertions repeatedly throughout this discussion, edit-warring the while. This article has naturally always been a magnet for conspiracy theorists and worse. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * congratulations for attacking the person, not the edit, traitor. It's comical how you've changed your tune. First it was "undue weight" because the previous links didn't conclusively state a long-standing relationship, going so far as to call me a "conspiracy theorist" because you're one of (MANY) rothschild dependents. Now with a much better link (thanks to your input), you've changed your original argument from
 * "The Telegraph article, which I can read, mentions no long-standing relationship between the families. If there was one I think they would."
 * to stealing User:The Anome's, by saying "I could see how it can be added in the article, but not the infobox". It hurts when someone points out your original argument has changed, doesn't it? It's not anything new on this site, unfortunately.
 * This relationship should remain in the infobox, as it's a noteworthy relationship that existed on this page for quite a while. Only recently has there been such focus on removing any mention of this noteworthy relationship, coincidentally when more people are asking questions about this family.
 * After I found such a link, you are now resorting to terms like "crank". It's a shame you're willing to resort to that, traitor. Then again, since people like User:Nroth13 edit their own wikipedia page to reinforce their self-importance, why wouldn't sycophants like you run to their defense when someone seeks to retain an important piece of information?
 * Only in your mind is your self-worth sufficiently high to hurl insults at a (fellow) editor who is far more accomplished than you in all the fields which you "specialise". I know you know who I am; I know User:DuncanHull does too, and I know he deliberately reverted a few edits in order to make it look innocent, althewhile refreshing your reversion count. He clearly does not want to get involved, and was simply following instructions, which I can't hold against him.
 * I assure you it's not I who is the crank. If I really cared to prove that to your Rothschild-dependent sycophant-self, I would have done so by now. Everyone reading this knows who I am, including you. The only thing you've succeeded at is showing how far lazy people like yourself will go to defend lies and a system that only favours the meek, impressionable, and malicious. 31.208.7.22 (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The policy on infoboxes is that infoboxes should summarize content that's in the article. If it isn't in the article, it shouldn't be in the infobox. On whether or not to add such information to the article, I have no real opinion. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * But you're incorrect User:Compassionate727, it is in the article:
 * "Writing of the Rockefeller and Rothschild families, Harry Mount writes: 'That is what makes these two dynasties so exceptional – not just their dizzying wealth, but the fact that they have held on to it for so long: and not just the loot, but also their family companies.'[74]"
 * "In 2012, RIT Capital Partners announced it is to buy a 37 per cent stake in a Rockefeller family wealth advisory and asset management group. The deal, focusing on asset-management, marks the first time that these two well-known families have collaborated.[68] Commenting on the deal, David Rockefeller, a current patriarch of Rockefeller family, said: 'The connection between our two families remains very strong.'[69]"
 * To suggest such statements (outside of the infobox) aren't encapsulated by the infobox addition, which now provides a citation conclusively demonstrating a relationship of (at least) fifty years, is inaccurate and misleading.
 * edit: PING ! Your subordinates User:DuncanHill and User:Johnbod are doing an admirable job, but I'm aware that's never enough for you. Either they succeed or fail; lets hope the latter won't result in Johnbod losing any perks, or the roof over his head, or the food he needs. ;)) 31.208.7.22 (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * First off, your tone is straight up ridiculous, you're lucky you weren't blocked for harassing others a long time ago. I've issued a final warning: if you continue to accuse others of being part of conspiracies, I'll report you to AIV.
 * Now, hopefully we can have a reasonable discussion. 31.208.7.22 has demonstrated that this is discussed in the article, though it is brief. What do we think about expanding that, then adding the information to the infobox? (I'm not following this argument in detail, so I apologize if you feel like you're repeating yourself.) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I apologise for offending you User:Compassionate727, you seem like a nice person. I do not feel, however, that it was incumbent upon me to mention that Rockefeller's name was mentioned in the article twice, and in both cases it was alongside Rothschild. That is, they both allude to a working relationship that was not formed in 2012. I was upset because I felt you could have realised this fact by searching their name on the page. Maybe my expectation of you having done that prior to posting on the Talk page was unfair, and for that I apologise. I tend to get upset when I feel people aren't exercising an optimal amount of common sense.
 * Regarding your threat to report me to the AIV, I actually feel this may be a reasonable course of action to resolve the issue because it does not seem the reverters are interested in facts. look at Johnbod's edit history. He is no stranger to editing Rothschild-related articles, which suggests conflict of interest. I do not know if I have any conflicts of interest, as I had the choice (years ago) to "pick a side" and I could not tolerate the stench from the Rothschild camp (even with the best nose plugs). Very few people are afforded such a choice, but in choosing the former I implicitly agreed to allow the proverbial "deck [to be] stacked against me" for sovereign protections that very few receive.31.208.7.22 (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I personally don't know anything about the Rothschild family. This page ended up on my watchlist when I reverted a piece of vandalism, and it's been there ever since. This of course means I don't know anything about any political intrigue undertaken by the Rothschilds. As far as your accusations go: a history of editing articles doesn't alone suggest a conflict of interest.  may very well simply be interested in this topic. I know that I have a history of editing articles related to the military and it's history, but I'm not part of any militaries. You seem to have just admitted to having a bias, which is fine: we prefer to know about who has what biases, as it makes it easier to reach a consensus.
 * Personally, I'm less inclined to be as harsh towards Johnbod because of how you introduced the incivility into this discussion. Remember that I had to blank certain portions of your initial comment to make it tolerable. That said, if you drop the insults and he continues to use them, I will issue that warning.
 * All in all, I support 's proposal. We should close this RfC and open another one, with a specific proposal that we are asking for comments on. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Propose a one-month semi-protection on the article to keep the NPOV.142.105.159.60 (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Looked at User:142.105.159.60's history, and while I'm okay with a temporary hiatus until a consensus is reached, the previous form should stay until a consensus is reached because it has been contested only recently. Further, many of this user's edits have been reverted, and he seems to have a pro-muslim slant which biases his input, given the aforementioned relationships. I find my response to this user's comical, sudden arrival and participation to be appropriate, especially when their edits suggest they are one of Rothschild's dependents.
 * edit, indeed my suspicions about User:142.105.159.60's pro-muslim bias are not unfounded. See here (tried to say polygamy has greatly contributed to HIV/AIDS epidemic), here (acts as if he's the boss, similar to how he swooped in here), or here (again acted like he was the boss;removed valid tags on page theorising African Americans descended from Moors [and were therefore Islamic by birth.]. seems pretty pro-muslim to me.) 31.208.7.22 (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You've only proved my point. If you had looked at, you'd have realized that the tags weren't valid. And while were at it, how does me opposing a group arguing that African-descended Americans are descendents of muslims make me pro-Muslim? It's sort of the opposite.
 * Guy, look at your edit history. I'm not even going to get into it. Your topical interests say it all. Plus, you haven't argued any facts and you clearly skipped to the end of this conversation and decided to participate. you were not the original reverter, nor were you involved in the original conversation. Don't make me even post some of your tattles on people, because it's quite comical (you think you're the boss, simple as that). You also like saying "you proved my point" and acting like you were right all the time, even though the edits were reverted. 91.211.125.85 (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And while we're at it, how does this have any relevance at all to the article? Lastly, what edits have I made that make you think I'm related to the Rothschild's in any way? I'm descended from English and Irish peasants. This article needs to be semi-protected to heep conspiracy nuts like yourself out.142.105.159.60 (talk) 16:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment What is this RfC supposedly about? Suggest you close and start again with a bit less mud-slinging. Pincrete (talk) 00:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The RFC was about the Rothschild Rockefeller relationship. It seems muslims and the supporters of rothschild have been trying to remove what was a staple in the infobox, likely due to the rapid change in global climate recently. The early part of this conversation concerned the substantiation of the "connected families" field, to which I had to provide a few different sources (first Johnbod said the FT.com article was insufficient, then he said the first telegraph article was insufficient. here's the blockquote
 * ":::::: Requesting additional comments as User:Johnbod clearly can't read his own comments, which justified initial two reversion through 'undue weight' argument that claimed previous articles didn't demonstrate-longstanding relationship. He is now reverting because five decades is apparently not long enough to suit him. Can we get some moderation please? Seems wikipedia editors love changing the goalposts when their original claim (argument:undue weight, rationale: no timeframe mentioned in first two insertions) has been debunked. And don't you dare lie like your hero Rothschilds, User:Johnbod. You said undue weight, tried to spin the concept I was a conspiracy theorist, to which I produced an article that CONCLUSIVELY states the relationship is AT LEAST fifty years. Not only did you not response (regardless of the three-revert warning), you then choose to revert again even though I produced a new source that met the requirements. … unsigned, by 31.208.7.22 15:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)" 91.211.125.85 (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * Since I'm seeing in the edit summaries claims that only 91.211.125.85 thinks that the Rockefellers should be included, I should add that I currently also support inclusion. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've also requested to have this article fully protected while we work this dispute out. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * IP's, nobody is going to bother to wade through the acres of personal attacks here. Suggest you close and start again with a bit less mud-slinging, unless mud-slinging is why you are here, in which case look forward to blocks all round. Have fun in the meantime and count me out. Pincrete (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, now that the racist has been blocked, can we get back on track?

I Oppose the inclusion per WP:UNDUE. Mentioning it in the article is fine, but a mere 50 year link between two families, one of which is a century old, the other two-and-a-half centuries old isn't as significant as putting it in the infobox warrants. When it really comes down to it, by including the Rockefellers, we'd also have to include every other family the Rothschilds have done business over the years. To do anything else would only lend credence to conspiracy theorists.142.105.159.60 (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Since I don't know anything about this topic, how many of these other families are we potentially talking about? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just about every major noble family in Europe and many of the minor ones. They started business banking for German Princes, and their financial might played a substantial part in taking down Napoleon.142.105.159.60 (talk) 04:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's the real question: how many of those relationships have lasted as long as this one? We seem to have established that this one is at least 50 years old. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Seriously? The rothschild family has been prominent for over 200 years, and has had far closer relationships with many other families, mostly European Jewish ones, lasting all or most of this period. That is why putting the Rockefellers in the infobox is wholly WP:UNDUE. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * A little clarity This diff last September introduced the Rockefellers to the infobox for the first time (with no references and a very misleading edit summary). References have now been produced to show that the two families have known each other for some 50 years, on what basis is not clear. What a surprise!  Two parts of the respective family interests have very recently begun a business relationship. There is no evidence of marriages between the families, whereas the Rothschilds are famously connected by marriage to many prominent European families, Jewish and not, and have been accumulating such relationships for at least 200 years, long before the Rockefellers became prominent (ie rich). Two stray news stories, one of which is mainly a comparison, not an account of a connection, do not justify including this in the infobox, which should only include the most important information. The latest spat is caught up in ways I don't pretend to understand with conspiracy theories about Canadian energy interests, which remain completely unsourced.  Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * First things first, I corrected what I believe was a typo in your last comment there, just instead of justify. Feel free to revert that if I got it wrong. Secondly, although I don't really doubt you, could you name one or two of these families? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yes. Ok, more or less at random: Goldschmidt family, Bischoffsheim family, the Barent-Cohen family. In the 19th century the Rothschilds were famous for Cousin marriage between themselves, so really the only family sufficiently "connected" with them to justify a mention in the infobox is the Rothschilds themselves.  I note that on the same day last year the same editor added the Rothschilds to the Rockefeller family infobox - there is no mention of them in the article. I have removed that. Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Responding to RfC - I am unrelated to this argument, and have come here simply to respond to the RfC. I am not an admin as requested (very rudely) in the RfC, but I am an old Wikipedia editor with some familiarity with how we do things around here.  I humbly offer my outsider's viewpoint.
 * To begin this RfC response: You need to calm down. Both of you.  You need to restore civility. Both of you. You absolutely may not persist in repeated namecalling.  Simply understanding this RfC was nearly impossible, since you did not put a summary of issues in the RfC, but rather used it as another vector for spewing bile at each other.  STOP IT.  SERIOUSLY, STOP IT.  Remember the pillars of Wikipedia!  In particular, I'd like to remind everyone on this talk page of Assume Good Faith and Be Civil!
 * That out of the way, let me attempt to understand the issue. As I understand it, the issue at hand is the inclusion, within the infobox, of the line "Connected families: Rockefeller family".  This is the only issue under discussion.
 * So, with that in mind, I first have to ask, "What is the purpose of the `Connected Families` section of the infobox?" The template page itself doesn't say, but glancing at pages such as Rockefeller family and Einstein family, both of which use it, use it purely to link other prominent family names that have become RELATED by BLOOD.  It's basically there to clear up confusion when someone with a different last name is claimed to be literally part of the family, as with the Rockefellers and the McCormicks.  There are people listed under Rockefeller with the last name McCormick, and so it's important to put, in the infobox, that the two families are connected... quite literally, by marriage.  Not merely association or acquaintance.
 * Under this principle alone, I would have to suggest removing the Rockefellers from the infobox here. There is no marriage between members of the two families, particularly not one producing children with the last name Rockefeller.
 * However, I would like to also weigh in on the "longstanding connection" issue. The IP address requesting this RfC mentioned five decades of a "connection".  There are two things to consider here.  One, is 5 decades "enough", and two, is this really a "connection"?  I would say that the article supports a business or personal friendship relationship only.  This does not seem to suggest a "family connection" to me.  Secondly, it isn't about the absolute length of time (5 decades) but rather the proportion of time.  The Rothschild family is VERY old.  Compared to the length of the family line, how much is 50 years?  I'd say probably not that much.
 * I hope my comments help. Fieari (talk) 07:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I am satisfied. Since the IP has been blocked for harassment and attempted outing, that left me as the only one arguing that position, and since I not it view it the other way, I say exclusion wins. Can we go ahead and have entry removed from the infobox? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done I had trouble understanding the issue and following the discussion and am very grateful to User:Fieari for his/her useful analysis above. I have removed the parameter from the infobox for now. If I have read the consensus wrongly, I'm sure you will let me know. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:33, 22 June 2016 (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.

Prominent descendants section is a disorganized mess
There seems to be no organization to this list. For example, the marriage of James Rothschild and Nicky Hilton is currently listed at least twice. And why is Nica de Koenigswarter listed between Neil James Archibald Primrose and Léon Lambert? Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories, antisemitism, etc
I was doing some research on the history of the Western banking system, looking for some primary sources, and ended up here. In my opinion, the discussion of conspiracy theories should either be removed or made properly WP:NPOV, because I tried to find reliable sources on the claims that the theories about the Rothschilds and their influence in the global finance apparatus come from a place of antisemitism. The books I found as the sources are the literature equivalent of "Top 10 Creepiest Conspiracies" videos on YouTube, i.e. they are not academically sourced or written by historians with any authority. With that in mind, I'm removing the absolutist claims of antisemitism being the driving factor here, as merely being a Jewish family doesn't absolve them from critical historical analysis. They obviously were and are heavily involved in finance. Again, not opposed to the view being expressed, as long as it is done so in a transparently NPOV way. Di4gram (talk) 01:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I have reverted your changes, and suggest strongly that you do not reinsert them unless consensus is reached here. This article has suffered from persistent blatantly anti-Semitic vandalism for a very long time, and indeed was just been semi-protected because of it. That so soon after that protection it should be edited by someone who has not edited for four years to remove or downplay the existence of anti-Semitic prejudice against the family seems very odd indeed. DuncanHill (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The rationale behind my edits are in the spirit of explained above, as a function of WP:NPOV, WP:LABEL and WP:WEASEL. Also, I would refer you to WP:AGF. I do not need your consensus to make this edit, especially since your edit and commentary is glaringly in bad faith. Unless you can provide a proper logical reason and verifiable source for associating critics of the Rothschilds with neo-Nazis, then I suggest you revert to my edit, as yours is WP:NOR. If you are not willing to source your claims, then I will involve a mediator. I also recommend you re-read WP:BRD and especially point 6 of the first section.Di4gram (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I will wait until the 24-hour mark to re-instate my changes per WP:NPOV, WP:LABEL and WP:WEASEL- again, not excluding the points entirely but removing the neo-Nazi label to better ensure that the tone of the article is encyclopedic- assuming that no further input is offered in the form of factual evidence and not just a non-professional author/commentator's opinion. I think at this point, waiting 24h for a response is more than accomodating as per WP:3RR. Hope to hear from you soon! Di4gram (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I am responding here to a request on my talk page from DuncanHill. The subject matter is not my field of expertise, but I've been through enough review processes to have a grasp on the issue here.
 * This is a BLP. You cannot put vague character allegations into a BLP article. You need specifics and proof of what you are saying.
 * Who are the neo-Nazis spreading these stories; can you name them and prove they are neo-Nazis? Unless they belong to an organized group that specifies they are neo-Nazis, it's just a vague term tossed out like name calling.  So, you need to be specific about the conspiracy theories and have good sourcing.
 * A lot of the sourcing is not accessible. Any books listed as sources should have an accompanying ISBN or OCLC. The reader needs to be able to find out if these are good sources, or a self-published situation.
 * The lead should be a recap of what is already in the body, and if it's contained in the body and sourced therein, there should be no need for inline citations in the lead.
 * But the bigger issue is the vagueness of "frequently" and "many", "Many conspiracy theories about the Rothschild family have been identified as resulting from anti-Semitic prejudice reaching back several hundred years, and not as a result of evidence" explains nothing. It's just one more vagueness. You leave the reader wondering, "Oh, yeah?  Like who?  When?  Exactly how many?  How do we know that? "  Give examples and the sources.  Hauling out allegations like this requires specific details and sourcing.  — Maile  (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your input and agree with your analysis of the situation. Out of curiosity, what do you think of the larger issue of listing conspiracy theories in a BLP page? It doesn't seem to be the norm... take for example the recent "pizzagate" conspiracy theory. A section about it in any of the BLP pages associated with the supposed "coverup" would be massively inappropriate, as even the implications seriously taint the encyclopedic nature of the article- accordingly, there are no such sections in John Podesta or Hillary Clinton. To take a less political example, there is not even a section for this relatively benign conspiracy theory on Paul McCartney's page. What are your thoughts on that sort of issue, if you don't mind sharing? I guess maybe there is a slightly less rigid criteria for a group of people rather than an individual person, but I'm not sure if I'm just thinking wishfully or if it represents a problem with BLP or this page's classification as BLP (though I think that BLP ultimately protects it from actual antisemitic vandalism, personally). I'll do some reading on BLP in general in the mean time, I apologize if the question is answered there. Di4gram (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not an issue I've dealt with. — Maile (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I of course agree with. I've removed the bit about neo-Nazis specifically, since Rothschild conspiracy theories are not limited to neo-Nazis and been spread by others &mdash; other segments hailing from the far-right, some elements of the right (see here talking about Rothchild conspiracism in Pat Robertson's New World Order; elements of the far-left (see pp. 1-2 & 18 here), and general conspiracists (e.g., David Icke). The text in the article, notes that clear connection between Rothschild conspiracy theories and antisemitic canards; I've amended the text to make this more clear, cleaned up the citations, and added another citation. There can be no doubt that the statement is amply supported by the cited sources:


 * Statement in article: These conspiracy theories about the Rothschild family are not based on evidence, but rather arise from anti-Semitic prejudice and various antisemitic canards.

Neutralitytalk 01:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Rothschild family. 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/20130921054512/http://lasa-2.univ.pitt.edu/LARR/prot/fulltext/vol40no1/Shaw.pdf to http://lasa-2.univ.pitt.edu/LARR/prot/fulltext/vol40no1/Shaw.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.rothschildarchive.org/ib/?doc=%2Fib%2Farticles%2FBrazil2
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.rothschildarchive.org/ib/articles/AR2006Japan.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/the-rothschild-story-a-golden-era-ends-for-a-secretive-dynasty-756388.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rothschild.com/investmentbanking/ibleague.asp?id=ib-regional-manda
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://miranda.hemscott.com/servlet/HsPublic?context=ir.access.jsp&ir_client_id=1874&ir_option=DIRECTORS
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-17/rit-capital-increases-gold-investments-as-net-asset-value-rises.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rothschild.info/wine/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kasteeldehaar.nl/uk/0303_uk.htm

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) 16:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Putting a number on the family wealth
Editors have been determined to insert gossipy and contradictory figures into the lead on the current total wealth of the family, which, I'm pretty sure, is not actually public knowledge at all (if anyone has actually counted). Refs have finally appeared, to a NY tabloid and a website that is certainly not a WP:RS. if we are going to say anything it should have much better refs, and probably be much more vague. Johnbod (talk)


 * Agreed. Pls find hereafter a source that meets WP:RS (i.e. The Independent (U.K.)

PS: Silly me, Bill Gates isn't among the richest men on earth? 47.17.27.189 (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "industry insiders count..." ie this is gossip. The extended family must now number over 1,000 people, most of whom have probably never met, and I very much doubt that any person or group of people have the information to make an assessment that is worth us recording. Johnbod (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Not "gossip", reliable source as per WP:RS. These people have apologists all over... 47.17.27.189 (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * We can access Donald Trumps financial information other than what he tells us verbally and he's one guy in a country with strict income reporting laws.  It is virtually impossible to guess with any amount of accuracy what the net worth of a huge extended family of millionaires and billionaires with branches all around the world could possibly be worth.   It could be a few hundred billion.  It could be trillions.   All we could really do is add up what has been reported on each known member and maybe take a wild guess at the rest.   It's not like they publish an annual report on their assets and income.   As big as the family is it may very well be in the trillions.   My guess, and it's a very uneducated one admittedly, is that it is about three trillion.   But that is shared among over a thousand individuals.   Compare that to the Walton family worth about 130 billion.   But I digress.  My point is that in a case of such a huge family with such diverse and massive holdings kept in such a secretive manner, it is impossible for there to exist any reliable source on the topic of what they are worth.   I would venture to guess that most of them don't know what they are worth themselves let alone what each other is worth.   I would venture to guess that it is not possible for any source to know what they are worth, not even a rough estimate.   All anyone could do is guess.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.191.251.196 (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You can also ask insiders, like in the above linked article (WP:RS: The Independent (UK)). Also this family has notably holding companies in Holland and Switzerland who manage the bulk of the dynasty's fortune (not just for one family). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.17.16.137 (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

One problem which has always existed in relation to the Rothschild bank is that they represented a much larger collectively wealthier group of investors. If there was a problem in prompt payment the Rothschilds would make themselves heard but the actual holders of the bond issue would be their clients not themselves. Historian and Rothschild descendant Anka Muhlstein in her book "James Rothschild" says she believes that at the time of the post Napoleonic treaty of Versailles they were fronting for an anonymous major client. A better explanation than The Independent of the amount of money managed by the Rothschilds can be found in Joseph Wechsler's "The Merchant Bankers" published in 1966.140.247.136.175 (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rothschild family. 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/20120116122211/http://www.therothschildfoundation.com/ to http://www.therothschildfoundation.com/

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) 01:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2018
There are two errors in this article with regard to the titles of two of the four men who have held the title of Baron Rothschild. First, there is a reference to the first Lord Rothschild as "Lord Nathan Rothschild". This should properly be "Nathan, Lord Rothschild". A reference to someone as "Lord First Name/Last Name" is an honorific indicating that the individual named is the son of a Marquis, Earl, or Viscount, and is not a Lord in their own right. This is an incorrect designation for any member of the Rothschild family, none of whom has a father who has been elevated to a Marquisate, Earldom, or Viscountancy. For the same reason, the later designation of the third Lord Rothschild as "Lord Victor Rothschild" is also misleading and incorrect. It should be corrected to "Victor, Lord Rothschild".

To summarize. (1) change "Lord Nathan Rothschild" to "Nathan, Lord Rothschild"  (2) change "Lord Victor Rothschild" to "Victor, Lord Rothschild". 2.26.109.188 (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Antisemitism? Everywhere?
The writer is more like talking about his personal opinion in the conspiracy theories section. Better say: The family was accused of something by etc, while others consider these accusations to have arisen from anti-Semitic prejudice. Giving many cites won't make this flawless, since most of conspiracy theories regarding the Rothschild Family in the 21st century have nothing to do with anti-Semitism but rather Capitalism and the banking system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.255.198.29 (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Your claim that "most of [21st century] conspiracy theories" re. the Rothschilds "have nothing to do with anti-Semitism" is false: it is false to pretend that motives for such theories are strictly related to "Capitalism," because, as should be obvious, a theory can be both anti-Semitic and Capitalist at the same time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7454:6700:3CEA:511E:D2BE:F8B (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

They have nothing to do with Roman Empire Is false.
Roman Empire ... no way ... they have nothing to do with that history Trajanhk (talk) 05:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think perhaps you have confused the Holy Roman Empire, mentioned in the article, with the Roman Empire, which is not. DuncanHill (talk) 08:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

A small edit about the "conspiracy theories"
This family as mentioned on the page itself is a very large banking family. Rich people are a target for conspiracy theories I highly doubt people are on them just because they're Jewish. I understand you guys just want to keep this page unbiased but renouncing all criticism as antisemitic is a biased thing to do.

Jeffery McJeff Jefferson (talk) 13:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

A popular-minded 21st century (albeit uninformed historically) intuition might naturally see it as "doubt[ful]" that "people are on them just because they're Jewish," but when you look at the dubious, apocryphal sources of much of the myths surrounding this family, the disproportionate attention they have received over the ages (in comparison to countless unnamed and countlessly wealthy Christian aristocrats, whose invisible hands have arguably manipulated world affairs far more than the Rothschilds), and most importantly, when you consider the historical context in which the Rothschilds have been brought up, time and again, as "evidence" of Jewish world domination, the disproportionate treatment constitutes, itself, clear bias--and bias against Jews has a name: it is called anti-Semitism. It may not cover every single article on them, but it certainly can explain why "people are on them" in general, just as the bias of the UN explains why the tiny country of Israel has somehow warranted more official resolutions of condemnation than all the other countries of the world put together since the founding of the UN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7454:6700:3CEA:511E:D2BE:F8B (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

So criticism of Iisrael is also only because of anti-Semitism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:69D8:5500:4D8A:D5BE:8FEA:2050 (talk) 08:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Please try to stay on topic. This page is for discussing improvements to the article. It is not a forum for general kvetching about wider issues. If you are in any doubt, some but not all criticism of Israel is motivated by anti-Semitism. That which is expressed in terms of wild, vague, paranoid conspiracies that try to weave in all sorts of non-Israeli Jews are pretty much always motivated by anti-Semitism. Criticism that relates to Israel's actual policies and specific actions is less likely to be so. So, if somebody is complaining about Israel and the Rothschilds at the same time then that is very suspect indeed.
 * Similarly, not everybody who has ever had a specific beef with any of the Rothschilds was motivated by anti-Semitism but the people who have it in for the whole lot of them, and who never stop banging on about them being Jewish, well, you know perfectly well what that is. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Incompleteness in the Etymology
The etymology of Rothschild often makes a blanket assertion that it is German for Red Shield using the antiquated "th" of Roth. It's in fact Yiddish. Rothschild I suspect is properly pronounced "rotes-kilt" in Yiddish, but this has been very difficult to ascertain. In Yiddish, Rothschild renders as Red Herald, that is, Red Coat of Arms, in reference to the many armorial coats of arms of noble houses throughout Europe.

Of minor etymological interest, is the oft used phrase during the American Revolution, "The Red Coats are Coming, The Red Coats are Coming." Very intriguing coincidence considering the vast number of accusations hurled on the family about their war profiteering activities. Can more professional etymologists track down the first usage of the phrase "Red Coats are coming"? Possible oblique references to the banking dynasty should not be immediately dismissed.

The five arrows on the family herald are said to traditionally symbolize the five sons of Mayer Amschel Bauer (code name Rothschild). They appear opposed to the eagle, a long time symbol of continental European royalty, and the animal underneath, ostensibly a lion, a different set of royalty (possibly Africa?).

Very intriguing article, lots of room for scholarship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakewayd (talk • contribs) 07:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Make this picture spam under control


Use pictures only to directly illustrate the particular relevant text in specific paragraphs. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 11:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Two deaths
One rothschil died in New York of drug overdose around 2002? Another committed suicide in Paris in the 1990's. Anybody has their names? Anyway, i think they should be listed at the end of this article (list section)

Cheers!66.87.84.239 (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * That two members of an extended family have died is hardly notable. DuncanHill (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

One source says James rothschild was found dead in Paris in 1996. See here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.9.206 (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The Napoleonic Wars
Any of you guys think referencing a passage from a source owned by the source is suspect?

In one instance, the family network enabled Nathan to receive in London the news of Wellington's victory at the Battle of Waterloo a full day ahead of the government's official messengers.[24] Rothschild's first concern on this occasion was not to the potential financial advantage on the market which the knowledge would have given him; he and his courier immediately took the news to the government.[24] That he used the news for financial advantage was a fiction then repeated in later popular accounts, such as that of Morton.[26][27]

See here:

To here:

To here:

Why would the owner of The East India Trading Company publishing house be a reputable source, considering it was owned (still is in its new form) by the people the sentence reputes? Can you reference yourself on Wikipedia? Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.213.95 (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2019
Where it says Art And Charity, please remove the Charity part as there is no Charity involved! 31.20.249.152 (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It's referring to donations. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 21:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

"The" Napoleonic Wars? Was there another one?
The section header stating there is The Napoleonic Wars is a poor use of grammar. If I am not mistaken, there was only period of history where this happened so having the "the" to indicate a singular event is totally redundant; having a definite article is a tautology in this case. 81.141.39.200 (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The Napoleonic Wars includes the War of the Third Coalition, the War of the Fourth Coalition, the War of the Fifth Coalition, the War of the Sixth Coalition, the War of the Seventh Coalition, and a large number of side campaigns. It was not a singular event. Dimadick (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Related discussion
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. PPEMES (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * - uh, ta for the heads-up but where? Which section?  There's an awful lot of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography to look at / scroll through!  -'' SquisherDa (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * - uh, ta for the heads-up but where? Which section?  There's an awful lot of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography to look at / scroll through!  -'' SquisherDa (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2020
Section of page - RIT_Capital_Partners

"RIT Capital stores a significant proportion of its assets in the form of physical gold. Other assets include oil and energy-related investments."

I see that the reference for the statement above is from 2010. I don't see that this statement is an accurate representation of the current asset allocation of the investment trust, if that is what it is intended to describe, based on what I have read in the most recent annual report https://www.ritcap.com/sites/default/files/Annual-Report-December-2019.pdf, or most recent factsheet, https://www.ritcap.com/sites/default/files/RIT%20Capital%20Partners%20-%20May%202020%20Factsheet.pdf

Since this is something that will change over time, might it be best to remove the statement or link to their published information e.g. https://www.ritcap.com/reports Andrewhickman (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed - for now I have just dated the statement, but if anyone wants to add more recent allocations, or suggest a wording here, fine. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done ~ Amkgp  💬  18:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Pronunciation
OK I’m German. We say Rot-Shild, rot being red, and shield, Schild a shield; straightforward. For us it’s a joke to hear ˈrȯth(s)-ˌchī(-ə)ld : We assume a child of a Ross, a horse. Roths-child may even be a frequent hyphenation in America, instead of Roth-schild (Webster correctly: Roth·​schild), who knows here? The politically correct, "educated" pronunciation may be the German version, the American version more popular. (And don’t try to solve that with citations … :–) – Fritz Jörn (talk) 08:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Unamazingly, the English, French and German pronunciations are very different, as you would expect after nearly 200 years. So? Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Amazingly however in this world of wonders: Some languages try to speak names just as the named would, and call that politically correct, (or educated …), cf. Huawei in the German Wikipedia stating xwǎˈwěɪ. You can even listen to it as free tuition . In contrast the English natural English pronunciation ˈhwɑːˌweɪ. Most Germans (to my experience) prefer to say ›Huawai‹, somewhat like Havaii, German haˈva͜ii, englisch həˈwɑːiː. Italians are extreme: they adapt the whole word, not just the pronunciation, basta! Cornwall becomes Cornovaglia, sounding like a corned piece of luggage to me (valigia), and Munich Monaco. – Well, I had just reacted to the “needs IPA” up front, did however not dare to plug in ˈrȯth(s)-ˌchī(-ə)ld myself, not being a native. - Fritz Jörn (talk) 08:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you think English or French Rothschilds go around pronouncing their name the German way, you are certainly mistaken. Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The "Roths-child" pronunciation has long been naturalised in English and has been used by the BRITISH branch of the family themselves since the 19th century. It isn't an Americanism. ("Luther" with an English "th" sound has also been used in English for centuries, but that's a different matter.) I imagine the French branch probably use a different version again. -213.205.241.68 (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Rothschild / Rothchilds
✅

Isn't it time we removed the unsourced claim The German surname "Rothschild" is not related to the Protestant surname "Rothchilds" from the United Kingdom.? It is timorously tagged [citation needed], but I for one cannot find any source for Rothchilds that is not just a misspelling.TobyJ (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point, it's been tagged as needing a citation for over four years! I have removed it. DuncanHill (talk) 09:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Coat of Arms
The lion supporter is described as langued gules (with a red tongue) but is shown as armed and langued gules (both claws and tongue are red). Curmudgeonly Pedant (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2021
Lede:
 * Their buildings adorn landscapes across northwestern Europe.

Whether a given building is to be considered to "adorn" a given landscape is ultimately in the eye of the beholder, surely. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a less subjective verb to replace this one with, though, so a rephrasing along the lines of
 * Many examples of the family's rural architecture exist across northwestern Europe.

might be the way to go instead?

- 2A02:560:42A9:6900:7C4B:59F3:C243:A073 (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

in the category bit at the bottom of any Rothschild family, Nicole Stephane should be mentioned for the France bit
she was an actress in La Silence de la Mer and Les Enfants Terribles 92.40.6.61 (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Pronunciation
I have added the correct German pronunciation at the beginning of the article, since the supposed English pronunciation is completely wrong but widely used. Mispronouncing a given name time and again does not make it correct. I think that even the pronunciation [ˈʁoːθ.ʃɪlt] would be acceptable. --Schmutzman (talk) 09:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What nonsense! The family has been in England for 200 years & can pronounce their name however they like. I've put the German into a note. Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Mispronouncing a given name for a long time doesn't make it correct. English pronunciation of proper names is a problem in itself. You wouldn't pronounce "Hitler" as /ˈhaɪtlə/ which is more consistant with the usual English pronunciation. The morpheme "child" is a misunderstanding - the word is "Schild", which is German for "shield". So Just because someone "thinks" he knows how to pronounce a word doesn't mean it's correct. German has very clear and strict rules for pronouncing words. You can rely on my expertise: German is my mother tongue and I have a MA in English. Schmutzman (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * English pronunciations are not governed by German rules, thank heavens. This is the English Wikipedia, and you would do well to learn Anglophone ways. No wonder the family left Austria & Germany over 150 years ago!Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! You've managed to drag a discussion about correctly pronouncing a proper name into the gutter. /irony on/ Rothschilds left Germany and Austria because they were fed up with being pronounced correctly /irony off/ The anglophone way of pronunciation is erratic and often fails to come even close to the original e.g. Zeus is actually pronounced like /ze'us/ not /zjuːs/. Schmutzman (talk) 16:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Since this is English Wikipedia, the pronunciation conventionally used in English should be primary, even though it's etymologically "wrong". But IMO the German pronunciation should not be relegated to a footnote either, so I've put it in the lead section after the Anglicised one. Hairy Dude (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Was just about to note this, but saw you already mentioned it! Thanks!  Nik ol ai h ☎️📖 02:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)