Talk:Bethmanns and Rothschilds

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


The templates are pretty self explanatory. Please read this for an explanation of 'peacock' terms; the fact that the article reads like an essay is pretty obvious. I'd appreciate it if you would replace the tags until the issues are actually resolved. If you would like some specific examples, here are two from the lead, bolded for emphasis:

  • "for several decades their affairs were closely intertwined while they carried on a vigorous rivalry."
  • "as business partners but also, not least thanks to the enlightened outlook of..." (also POV/OR

The entire article is written like an essay, filled with POV, and fairly poorly sourced. I would ask, politely, that the {{peacock}} and {{essay}} templates be replaced on the article until these issues are addressed. [roux » x] 22:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for beginning to set out your objections in detail. However, I don't follow you yet.
  • That this was a vigorous rivalry is evidenced by the quotations from relevant literature. There will be more quotations in the future as I flesh out the article, but I believe the sources as of now are sufficient to characterize the rivalry as "vigorous".
  • It is standard historiography to associate the Age of Enlightenment with Jewish emancipation, as stated in that article:

The Age of Enlightenment is also prominent in the history of Judaism, perhaps because of its conjunction with increased social acceptance of Jews in some western European states, especially those who were not orthodox, or those who converted to the officially sanctioned version of Christianity.

Hence Simon Moritz von Bethmann is correctly characterized as "enlightened".
I hope we can continue this discussion in a collegial vein, without the intrusion of tags hanging over it.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
No... 'The Enlightenment' is the commonly-accepted term for the era; to refer to a single person as 'enlightened' is POV/OR/PEACOCK. [roux » x] 22:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Changed "enlightened" to "pro-emancipation". See also this nascent article-in-progress (not yet in the article namespace): User:Goodmorningworld/Simon_Moritz_von_Bethmann_(1768-1826)#Life. I am aware that Bethmanns and Rothschilds still needs a good deal of work and I will keep working on it with your points in mind. In the meantime, please feel free to supply more criticism and improvement.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Pro-emancipation is far better! Do you have a reference which supports the use of that term to describe him? We need to be careful about value judgements, even more so than with other facts. [roux » x] 23:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Bethmanns and Rothschilds already contains a number of references to support that characterization. Achterberg and Helbing, in the link to the embryonic article in my userspace (which I gave just above) do likewise. There will be more references but that SMvB worked hard to aid the Jews, at some personal cost to himself, is undisputed scholarship.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's disputed scholarship.. just that when we use personal terms like 'pro' or 'anti' anything, we should try and source them specifically. [roux » x] 23:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Original research[edit]

I stand by my delete suggestion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bethmanns and Rothschilds. Just because the two families had financial houses in the same city and are naturally both mentioned in several books does not make a joint or comparison article. None of the sources I read which include mention of both families makes the connections you have done in this article. That is Synthesis of published material which advances a position. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, what are the sources that you have read, and what are the sources promoting this perspective that the primary author of the article has read? Tama1988 (talk) 06:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC) ......... PS the primary author provided this information at the end of the AfD. Tama1988 (talk) 09:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
You mean when the editor gives us a count of mentions in the books? That may make individual articles pass WP:N but synthesising that to mean they are a joint topic is WP:OR. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's his half. I'm not saying that it satisfies me (I haven't yet examined the matter), but anyway he's been specific. Meanwhile, when you say None of the sources I read which include mention of both families makes the connections you have done in this article, what are these sources? Tama1988 (talk) 09:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Because my refutation of the charge of "original research" came right at the end of the AfD discussion, DoubleBlue may have missed it. Here it is again, with a few minor alterations:

  • "no sources, including those mentioned here, have these families as a joint topic" -- in fact, numerous sources among those cited in the bibliography study the rivalry between the Houses of Bethmann and Rothschild in detail.
Holtfrerich in Frankfurt as a Financial Center refers to the Bethmanns 31 times and to the Rothschilds 30 times (Google Books preview); Corti in Rise of the House of Rothschild refers to the Bethmann 28 times (Google Books preview), and I already posted quotes from Corti in this and other Bethmann articles specifically illustrating the Bethmann v. Rothschild dynamic; Udo Heyn in Private Banking and Industrialization especially covers this topic, his book refers to Bethmanns 30 times and to Rothschilds 35 times, the rivalry between the two houses is addressed at several points including pp. 98, 109, 110, for example on p.98:

Foremost among the great private bankers in Frankfurt, the Gebrueder Bethmann opposed the Rothschilds throughout our entire period. From the early decades of the nineteenth century, the two kept clashing across the entire continent from Paris, Vienna and Berlin to Frankfurt and the German provinces...

(Google Books preview).

These three English-language sources are available online. Whatever faults the Article may have (the biggest ones being that it does not focus stringently enough yet on the topic, namely the interaction between Bethmanns and Rothschilds, and the fact that more than half of the relevant literature has yet to be processed and worked into the Article), "original research" is not one of them. The Article does not employ first-hand or privileged information, it does not advance a novel idea not found in the literature, but works solely from published secondary sources.

And that's why I've removed the "original research" tag from the Article. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Summary & WP:MoS[edit]

I can't comment on the above, as I'm not quite awake enough to pour through such a lengthy piece in any depth, but I would like to point out that a "summary" section is generally considered unnecessary. The place for an article summary is in the intro, according to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. I'd suggest merging the Summary section with a new section created by breaking up the longest section. MrZaiustalk 03:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point, thank you. Listen, I am very eager to improve the Article based on your suggestion. I am well aware that it needs a lot of work, in fact, I just put a "multiple issues" tag on the Article page listing areas where it needs to improve. (Restructuring is what you are pointing out, above). However, if anyone is itching to take an active part in this there is no need to stand back and wait. The topic belongs to all editors who find it worth their while and want to build a great Article.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)