Jump to content

Talk:Rothschild family

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dancetothehouse (talk | contribs) at 12:39, 9 March 2018 (→‎A small edit about the "conspiracy theories"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Who cares if it's anti-semitic or not? It's about reasons for distrust. Not everything against the Rothschilds can be waved away as "conspiracy theory", and simply clumping together all criticism as the obviously extreme "they control the world's wealth" is a NPOV breaching strawman and, intellectually dishonest. It's easy to repudiate valid and rational criticism of a wealthy, well-connected, politically conscious Jewish business dynasty when the only criticisms you decide to air to the reader are the blatantly extreme ones, as this article has done with it's pathetic bifurcated half-a-paragraph on the subject. Also, whoever cited the line about anti-semitic conspiracy theories did not need to add in that many citations, drop the fanaticism please, this is Wikipedia not Fight Club.

Dancetothehouse (talk) 12:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Done. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rothschild_family&oldid=829566269"