Talk:Rothschild family

Freemasonry

Needs to have a section on Freemasonry (N M Rothschild's name is carved on the marble slab of the most eminent Masons in London's Grand Lodge) and also a section on the Star of David symbol which they used when holding Masonic sessions. The currency & use of this symbol comes from the House of Rothschild & their commissioning of new synagogue buildings with this symbol.--Wool Bridge (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Got an WP:RS for that? --bender235 (talk) 23:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The barons are of the knights of the old holy roman empire that was dissolved in 1870. The secular knights rolled into Freemasonry. The Templars official website says the Templars are in FM York Rite. These Templars were / are the barons. The Rothschilds are on the list of Famous Freemasons. This "red shield" was the shield of the Templars or Jolly Roger.72.161.238.14 (talk) 05:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

To start with from Wikipedia: [[1]] James Mayer de Rothschild, Financier, Initiated Oct. 24, 1802: Emulation Lodge No. 12, London[27] Nathan Mayer Rothschild, Financier, Initiated Oct. 24, 1802: Emulation Lodge No. 12, London[5][27]

There is a book with a Christian agenda, called Six-Pointed Star: Its Origin and Usage by O J Graham, ISBN-10: 0968938302, which has some reasonable facts mixed up with a paranoid Catholic rhetoric against Freemasonry. In Hebrew the Hexagon is the Magen David which means the Shield of David and the Red Shield is the description of this symbol on the House of Rothschild's coat of arms. The hexagon denoted Freemasonry in the late 17th or early 18th century with reference to the temple of Solomon , later it symbolised Jewish Freemasonry and now it symbolises Judaism alone. This is confusing for the layman who finds this symbol in all kinds of diverse places from Islamic buildings to such things as the Orange Order or US state institutions --Wool Bridge (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The history of the origin of the family name is false

As is shown by this article in the NY Times dated Oct 11, 1863.

The House of Rothschild

Among all the congresses held this summer, of princes, lawyers, musicians, schoolmasters, social science men, political economists, and a hundred others, one very notable meeting has almost escaped public attention. A few days ago, our Paris correspondent told us that a congress of the members of the illustrious house of Rothschild has been sitting at Paris. The purport of the meeting was nothing less than to rearrange the dominions of the great banking dynasty. In one word, the great object of the Rothschild congress was to reduce the five branches of the house who now rule Europe to four, and following the example of Garibaldi (hard to read, think that's the name), to strike another sovereign of Naples from the list of reigning monarchs. Henceforth there are to be but four kings of the house of Rothschild, with secure thrones at London, Paris, Vienna, and Frankfort. It is now exactly a hundred years since poor Jew, called Mayer Anselm made his appearance at the City of Hanover ; barefooted, with a sack on his shoulders, and the bundle of rags on his back. Successful in trade, like most of his co-religionists, he returned to Frankfort at the end of a few years, and set up a small shop in the "Jew-lane," over which hung the signboard of a red shield, called in German roth-schild. As a dealer in old and rare coins, he made the acquaintance of the Serene Elector of Hesse Cassel, who, happening to be in want of a confidential agent for various open and secret purposes, appointed the shrewd-looking Mayer Anselm to the post. The Serene Elector being compelled soon after to fly his country, Mayer Anselm took charge of his cash, amounting to several millions of florins. With the instinct of his race, Anselm did not forget to put the money out on a good interest, so that, before Napoleon was gone to Elba, and the illustrious Elector had returned to Cassel, the capital had more than doubled. The ruler of Hesse Cassel thought it almost a marvel to get his money safely returned from the Jew-lane of Frankfort, and at the Congress of Vienna was never tired of singing the praise of his Hebrew agent to all the Princes of Europe. The dwellers under the sign of the Red Shield laughed in the sleeves; keeping carefully to themselves the great fact that the electoral two millions florins had brought them four millions of their own. Never was honesty a better policy.

Mayer Anselm died in 1812, without having the supreme satisfaction of hearing his honesty extolled by kings and princes. He left five sons who succeded him in the banking and money-lending business, and who, conscious of their social value, dropped the name of Anselm, and adopted the higher sounding one of Rothschild, taken from the signboard over the paternal house. On his deathbed their father had taken a solemn oath from all of them, to hold his four millions well together, and they have faithfully kept the injunction. But the old City of Frankfort clearly was too narrow a realm for the fruitful sowing of four millions; and in consequence, the five were determined after a while to extend their sphere of operations by establishing branch banks at the chief cities of Europe. The eldest son, Anselm, born 1773, remained at Frankfort; the second, Salomon, born in 1774, settled at Vienna; the fourth, Charles, the infant terrible of the family, established himself in the soft climate of Naples, and the fifth and youngest, James, born 1792, took up his residence at Paris. Strictly united, the wealth and power of the five Rothschilds was vested in the eldest born; nevertheless, the shrewdest of the sons of Mayer Anselm, and the heir of his genius, Nathan, the third son, soon took the reins of government into his own hands. By his faith in Wellington and the flesh and muscle of British soldiers, he nearly doubled the fortune of the family, gaining more than a million sterling by the sole battle of Waterloo, the news of which he carried to England two days earlier than the mail. The weight of the solid millions gradually transferred the ascendancy in the family from Germany to England, making London the metropolis of the reigning dynasty of Rothschild. Like the royal families of Europe, the members of the house of Rothschild only intermarry with each other. James Rothschild married the daughter of his brother Salomon ; his son Edmond, heir apparent of the French line, was united to his first cousin, the daughter of Lionel, and grand dauther of Nathan Rothschild ; and Lionel again - M. P. for London - gave his hand in 1836 to his first cousin Charlotte, the daughter of Charles Rothschild, of Naples. It is unnecessary to say that, though these matrimonial alliances have kept the millions wonderfully together, they have not improved the race of old Mayer Anselm, of the Red Shield. Already signs of physical weakness are becoming visible in the great family. So, at least, hint the French papers in their meager notices about the Rothschild congress at Paris. From all that can be gathered out of a wilderness of canards, thin faces and thick fiction, it appears that the sovereigns of the Stock Exchange met in conference for the double purpose of centralizing their money power and widening their matrimonial realm. In other words, the five reigning kings, descendants, according to the law of primogeniture, of the five sons of Mayer Anselm, came to the decision to reduce their number to four by cutting off the Neapolitan branch of Charles Rothschild ; while it was likewise decided that permission should be given to the younger members of the family to marry, for the benefit of the race, beyond the range of the first cousinship. What has led to the exclusion of the Neapolitan line of Rothschild seems to have been the constant exercise of a highly blameable liberality, unheard of in the annals of the family, Charles, the prodigal son of Mayer Anselm, actually presented, in the year 1846, 10,000 ducats to the orphan asylum of St. Carlo, at Naples, and the son and heir of Charles (Gustavus) has given repeated signs of his inclination to follow in the footsteps of his father. Such conduct, utterly unbecoming of the policy of the house of Rothschild, could not be allowed to pass unnoticed, and, accordingly - we quote the rumor of Paris journalism - the decheance of the Neapolitan line has been pronounced. However, Baron Gustavus de Rothschild is not to retire into private life, like famous Charles V., with only a cassock on his shoulders and a prayer-book in his hand, but is allowed to take with him a small fortune of 150,000,000 francs, or about six million sterling - a mere crumb from the table of the descendants of poor Mayer Anselm, who wandered shoeless through the electorate of good King George III. It is certain that no romance of Royalty is equal to the romance of the house of Rothschild — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.107.106 (talk) 05:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the shield, shouldn't the description be the other way round? Supporters Dexter: a lion rampant Or (Should be Sinister) Sinister: a unicorn Argent (Should be Dexter) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.102.35 (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2015 (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.)

"The Rothschild story: A golden era ends for a secretive dynasty". The Independent. Archived from the original on 15 January 2006. But in another way it marks out the continuation of an even older tradition - the ability of the family which has founded one of the world's largest private banking dynasties to sustain their secretive fortune, which industry insiders count not in billions but in trillions, and keep it within the family.

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't even 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)

Relationship with the Rockefeller Family

Hi,

It's unacceptable that this reference keeps getting removed by different entities, all of whom's survival greatly depends on this family. Some may say the attempted reversions are justified as a result, but I disagree.

I currently live in a very energy-rich area in the Commonwealth, and it has been known this family (Rothschilds) have controlled our resources with the Rockefeller family.

The FT article was merely a formal acknowledgement of this alliance, which has existed for over a century and likely to the times after Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington's victory.

The source provided is sufficient, and while you may argue that there are other families heavily involved with the Rothschild family (see Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world), this one is the most important and lucrative given the Crown owns the land upon which these resources sit. 31.208.7.22 (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, right. So you're not a conspiracy theorist at all! Even if this "alliance" was appropriate content for the article, sticking a field in the infobox with no related content in the article, and a paywalled link as reference, is not the way to go. John D. Rockefeller, founder of that family fortune, was still working as a bookkeeper on a very basic salary when the Duke of Wellington died in 1852, and not born until 20+ years after Waterloo. But I don't suppose facts will bother you much. Readers might like to see the original comments here. Johnbod (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

First:

I understand your concern about a paywalled reference, and I sympathise, but when a previous user linked a similar (non-paywalled) article with similar content from Vanity Fair, a muslim (see log, and note that the reverter has an extensive history of edits almost exclusively on muslim content) reverted it trying to say vanity fair isn't a source. The inserter then gave an FT.com link.

I never said that the Rockefeller family was an "equal" to Rothschild. What I said was that they have had an alliance for hundreds of years, to which you correctly pointed out that the first Rockefeller was not "rich" and born much after 1812. However, that was never the crux of the claim I was making. The claim I was making, which is correct, is that Rothschild's relationship with the Rockefeller family is among their most lucrative because the Crown owns the land upon which the Rockefellers' energy resources sit, and over a third of the United States' crude unrefined imports are from the Crown (see EIA.gov annual crude imports by country). These unrefined materials are then refined in the United States, which give both families a handsome profit since the Crown is responsible for the enforcement of rules and regulations in the area where the energy is being extracted.

Further to this long-known, yet rarely mentioned fact is Evelyn de Rothschild acting as the financial advisor for HRH . While you could argue that the (relatively, 1989ish right?) recent appointment has no bearing on the familial "legacy" left by this family, it is a symptom of the relationship I am speaking of.

Next, Scotia-Mocatta, a subdivision of the Bank of Nova Scotia (a bank created prior to 1867, to facilitate TRANS-ATLANTIC trade), was owned by entities (the Mocatta and Goldsmid) who had lost greatly from the Battle of Waterloo (likely due to no small part by Rothschild; one Goldsmid committed suicide after Barings Bank collapsed. wonder how that happened?). These banks held much of the wealth accrued from the Napoleonic wars, and have long since been the favoured banks of Rothschild. To get an idea of how well these banks are run, consider that Scotiabank does not take second-lien loans:

"We have a very high-quality, high investment-grade portfolio. We do not take subordinated debt levels. We don’t take second-lien loans,” said Chief Financial Officer Sean McGuckin in an interview".

It should be clear and easy to see that both the Royal Bank of Canada and Bank of Nova Scotia are older than Canada (1864 and 1832 respectively), were incorporated in Nova Scotia to facilitate trans-atlantic trade, and by the time the first Rockefeller came of age: fresh for the pickings by Rothschild. These banks are responsible for Crown resources such as the one mentioned above, which exports a large of amount of unrefined energy to the United States. Rockefeller, as you surmised, is one of many subordinates of the Rothschilds, but his role is not insignificant.

These banks are (understandably, they are the world's central banks, and also mercantilist) very secretive about the loans they hold. But one way to gain insight to how wealth can be extracted, is to notice that they are incorporated into the Nova Scotia legislation. The Canadian government draws money from the Bank of Nova Scotia (see cheque1 cheques 2/3)

While these cheques are drawn on (corrupt) government officials names, to "pay back" what was taken, the 90k "return" by Nigel S. Wright was done in Duffy's name (which shows you how much power certain people have over these banks). This sort of shenaniganry is nothing new in Canada, but since it is a young country with approximately 30 million legitimate citizens, many of whose ancestors were begged by the Crown to settle it, they are often quiet about the rampant corruption of Rothschild out of fear of retribution. It is therefore my duty to speak out and defend what I feel is a noteworthy relationship, as it has come at the direct cost of the people whose ancestors were once begged to settle a cold and barren tundra that no one else wanted to.

To your original and fair point about the paywalled link, I am going to find another and use it as a citation. It should be clear that the aforementioned banks rise to prominence occurred around the time the Rockefeller Rothschild relationship developed (post 1832). The link I'm going to use is from the Telegraph that mentions their history just prior to the announced alliance in 2012. A poignant quote from this new citation is worth sharing:

John D Rockefeller got going a little later. The son of a travelling salesman, he made a fortune in food supply, before turning to oil refining in Ohio. By 1868, he owned the biggest oil refinery in the world, in partnership with his brother.

Also notice how Rockefeller miraculously got the money for the world's largest oil refinery in 1868, just a few years after the Royal Bank of Canada was incorporated (and approximately 30 after the Bank of Nova Scotia)? Also notice that his business is refining? the very same refining necessary for one third of the United States crude imports from Her Majesty's property?

Lastly, thanks for this chat. I appreciate your ability to stay civil when the original message was anything but, and that is why I am giving you (what I feel) is a very thorough and well-reasoned response with enough facts to justify retention of the alliance, but with a more accessible reference.

The Telegraph article, which I can read, mentions no long-standing relationship between the families. If there was one I think they would. Why would JDR not use one or more of the many large American banks? You produce only speculation, no facts or relevant references, except to the recent deal; it is not normally secret who financed who in such contexts. My previous comments also still apply. Johnbod (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Just because you're unfamiliar with OUR history (which you should be ashamed of, really. Canada may only have half the population, but we hold all of the Commonwealth's wealth!!!) and by extension, the wealth of resources in Canada (which is why Scotiabank and RBC are mercantilist-i.e. their deposits are determined by the "value" of the resources upon which they rest. this means fisheries, oil, everything!), it does not mean I am incorrect. The reason JDR did not use the other banks is because Scotiabank and RBC, as I have mentioned before, were created (especially the former) with the specific goal of trans-atlantic trade and had MORE wealth than ANY American bank at the time.

I am shocked that you are from England and even asking these questions, because it was quite clear (especially after 1812 and the Napoleonic Wars), that Canada (as The Colony of Her Majesty, originally conceived in the FIFTEEN HUNDREDS by arguably our most influential figure Sir Francis Bacon) had much more "hard wealth" than the United States and France. It should be especially obvious because they wanted Arthur Wellesley to go there during that time in order to defend what we had rightfully earned. It should not be too hard for you to see that the wealth upon which Scotia and RBC were initially incorporated with was the wealth resulting from the War of 1812 and the Napoleonic wars. The deposits held by Scotiabank at that time were, again, as mentioned in its history, with the intent of facilitating transatlantic trade.

Why do you think the great Alexander Graham Bell is buried in Nova Scotia, even though the americans insist he wasn't Scottish-Canadian?

Which bank do you think all the resulting debt/equity from the Bell Telephone Company (and resulting memorials for Alexander Bell) is originated by? Some would say Rothschild, as he does have the ability to "watch us" (via telecoms), but it is not directly.

Same goes for the Lord Kelvin's Transatlantic cable which connects in Newfoundland (again, founded by Sir Francis Bacon in the FIFTEEN HUNDREDS). Both of these innovations (telegraph and telephone) were incredibly crucial to rapid communication between Commonwealth Realms, which was especially important after 1812 and the Napoleonic wars (for cohesion).

Both innovations "covered" the United States and Canada. The Bell Telephone company spanned both America and Canada for the longest time (1877-1984 see Bell System), followed by a very questionable dissolving of the assets afterwards (which presumably was very lucrative). The transatlantic cable's "endpoint" is in Newfoundland. These technological innovations were very expensive, and fall under "trans-atlantic trade" because they required a lot of "hard wealth" (immediately-convertible bartering assets) to create (no one was willing to take a loss on this except the person putting up the money). Of course we can't "prove" Scotiabank holds all of this debt because it is OLD and lucrative, but it should be obvious that there are very few entities capable of funding a continent-wide telecommunications infrastructure for over one hundred years.

I have provided a better telegraph link that further bolsters my claim, even though it's not as strong as i'd like. You stated the new article mentions no longstanding relationship between the two families, this telegraph article does (five decades is sufficient to constitute "longstanding" in my opinion, even though it's longer than that):

The transatlantic alliance cements a five-decade acquaintance between the now ennobled Jacob Rothschild, 76, and David Rockefeller, 96, the grandson of the ruthlessly acquisitive American oilman and philanthropist John D Rockefeller. “We’ve known each other for a long time, they have a good business,” said Lord Rothschild yesterday. “We haven’t got a presence in the US and this brings together two formidable names in finance.”

So the new link is both accessible and contains clear claims of the Rockefeller Rothschild relationship, which THEY acknowledge is (at least) five decades. Further, one cannot help but feel the disclosed claims are underestimated (longer than five decades, more than just acquaintances), given their astute ability to wield the media. I feel the new link satisfies your demand of disclosing a numeric value (5 decades) to the relationship, and also a direct quote acknowledging their relationship for some time.

notice how Rothschild says he has no presence in the United States? RBC and Scotiabank are in Canada, and any loans originated do not necessarily imply presence (see this link, which allowed Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, the owners of the Golden State Warriors, to pay players with Her Majesty's money) because I do not think he owns the assets held by the bank (Her Majesty does). However, he is able to use the assets as he sees fit (lend it out, etc; he is their unquestioned financial agent). Hence the Bell Breakup, hence the purchase of a bank that funds a Ponzi scheme "Venture (Vulture) Capital" firm KPCB (who recently valued Snapchat at 18b (before Perkins' death), really?).

edit: I should also mention that you are now in danger of violating the Three-revert rule, as my most recent insertion provides clearly accessible evidence of a longstanding relationship which you claim is very minor. I hope you respect the rules here, as you have no grounds to revert for a third time. 31.208.7.22 (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment

The RfC's outcome was this edit removing the "otherfamilies" parameter from the infobox. Cunard (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

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. @The Anome: … 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 @Nroth13 and Elena de Rothschild:! 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. Johnbod 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 Pincrete'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 [2], 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)

@Pincrete: 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. @The Anome: … 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)

@Johnbod: 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[3]". 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)

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. — 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)

• @DuncanHill and Di4gram: 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, if you don't mind? Di4gram (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)