Talk:Rothschild family

There are some major inaccuracies in this article - To begin with, how can Amschel Mayor be both the founder of the Rothschild family, having 5 sons, and also BE one of those 5 sons! WHFM

Likewise, how could John Adams be both the 2nd President of the United States and also be the 6th, his own son?! We're through the looking glass, folks! 76.197.135.117 (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Have started to expand this article and put neutral pov. The earlier links were inappropriate. Requires a lot more work, and careful treatment of how the family members are distinguished and referenced. mervyn 09:37, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

David Icke

Mary Ann Van Hoof supposedly receiving visions from the Virgin Mary telling her that the Rothschilds are "mongrel yids (Jews)" bent on imposing world domination through international banking and the work of their "satanic secret society."[1] She also claims that the Rothschilds and other Jews have subverted the Roman Catholic Church. [2] The British author David Icke has written extensively on this theme.

The above seems to suggest that David Icke also believes in a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world. I have read many of Mr Icke's books and have never found any thing either verbatim or pointing towards him being anti Jewish. He does mention the Rothschilds and International banking as a part of the evil and war machine, but no where in his books or films does he say it is because that they are Jewish or any other creed or race.

I suggest that this obvious slander either be removed or formatted differently Orasis 23:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

A simple Google of the words -David Icke Anti Semite- brings a plethora of reliable sources criticising Mr Icke for his anti-semitic views. Many critics feel that the use of the word 'reptile' or 'lizard' in Mr Ickes works is a disguise for the word 'Jew'. Mr Icke has connections to Canadian anti-semitic organisations. Mr Icke, in his book "...and the Truth Will Set you Free", repeatedly endorses The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and asserts its fundamental correctness ('The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' was an anti-semitic hoax, which purports to describe a Jewish plot to achieve world domination). Malbolge 18:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Malbolge 18:03 GMT, 26 February 2007.

How about trying to actually inform yourself, rather than Googling up a simple search and reading whatever garbage bubbles up. His books are available through the libraries. Believe me, your reliable sources aren't so reliable. And it would seem that their claims rely solely on general ignorance regarding Mr. Icke's work and a willingness to condemn a man without a proper investigation into what he has to say for himself. It begs the question: Why are all these folks so bent on damaging his credibility? And why are there so many apparently educated people willing to jump on the wagon with them when they literally know Jack about the issue at hand? 121.44.194.104 19:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"Why are all these folks so bent on damaging his credibility?" Ickes HAS no credibility outside the paranoid right wing. He never offers verifiable, objective evidence of his claims, not ever, citing only other paranoid right-wingers. And ad hominem attacks on his critics on his behalf only demonstrates your own lack of real ammunition in the debate.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, by the way -- in case you still labor under a misapprehension of their validity -- were demonstrated quite thoroughly several decades ago to have been invented out of whole cloth by Czar Nicholas II's secret police (actually, they subcontracted it out to a second-rate novelist) as a tool to further stir up antisemitism among the Russian Orthodox establishment. The Protocols are still a favorite source for slander among American evangelicals, however (and I can supply about 50 citations to demonstrate that . . .). --Michael K. Smith 17:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This sourced quote from David Icke pretty much ends any debate on the matter: "At the heart of Icke's theories is the view that the world is ruled by a secret group called the "Global Elite" or "Illuminati," which he has linked to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an anti-Semitic hoax.[3][4] In 1999, he published The Biggest Secret, in which he wrote that the Illuminati are a race of reptilian humanoids known as the Babylonian Brotherhood, and that many prominent figures are reptilian, including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Kris Kristofferson, and Boxcar Willie. [3][5]" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nadav1 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC). nadav 18:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

How does that end any debate in the matter? That quote says that he thinks QE2 and W are reptilian humanoids; that doesn't establish whether he's anti-Semitic or not. Since none of the people mentioned in the above list are even Jewish, it shows that he doesn't even necessarily ascribe this hoax, if he does believe in it, to Jewish people! So, how is that somehow implying that he's anti-Semitic? That is a serious charge and, while the passage in question has been reworded, it should not be thrown around on talk pages since this is a living person.--Gloriamarie 15:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories aside, you don't have to wear a tin-foil hat in order to recognize fascism for what it is. Anyone involved with International Investment Banking Restructuring, negotiating corporate mergences and further concentrating power in the corporate hierarchy, is a fascist in every sense of the word. May I suggest as a revision to the article that, as controversy (given the contentious nature of the word fascism), the Rothschilds' familial role in Global Society is one concerned with fascist motivations.

It should also be criticized that by placing any controversial arguments in a category of "conspiracy theory" there arises an issue of semantics and logical fallacy because of a prominent tendency to associate the concept with negative, discrediting connotation. <Simon,UWO>

I'm absolutely certain that you have no idea what the word fascist even means. The reason that it is a contentious term (apart from the historical societies that are defined as being fascist) is that uneducated leftists simply use it to describe people they don't like. I myself am a leftist and the odd and overly cliche usage of the word fascist annoys me to no end. People use it without having any idea what it means, and the usage becomes so broad and vague that it stops meaning anything. The fact that you actualy argue that "anyone involved with International Investment Banking Restructuring, negotiating corporate mergences and further concentrating power in the corporate hierarchy, is a fascist in every sense of the word" merely proves my point. Your argument lacks anything that even resembles an intelligent and coherent point. Part of the problematic nature of the term is the fact that Fascism was a very ill defined political ideology. Mussolini's co-written manifesto not only radically contradicts itself (at one point he called religion a mental illness and then he later called fascism a religion, which I mention as a particularly amusing example) and it fails to form any true and distinct ideological definition. There are vast differences between the three historical fascist regimes (Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany, and Franco's Spain), and thus the term becomes even more confusing. There are tendencies, trends and commonalities between the three entities, of course, but there simply isn't anything that emerges as a true fixed ideology. Mussolini, the first Fascist leader and one of the originators of the political movement, defined his beliefs only in terms of what he was opposed to, rather than giving a list of tenants, platforms, and aims. Fascism was defined as being anti-Communism and anti-democracy, but there was little given in the way of what it was exactly. Some of the better definitions that I have gained from various European history classes touch upon its populist nature, its reliance on pageantry, its focus on complete political, economic and cultural control and a strong militaristic principles as being the back bone of society. Fascism has never had anything to do with a so-called 'global society.' In fact one of the common denominators between the Fascist regimes was that they each pronounced extreme nationalism, which is diamemtrically oposed to globalization. What exactly do you mean by 'fascist motivations?' Your terminology makes no sense. And no, International Investment Banking Restructuring and the concentration of corporate power through merges, acquisitions and overall concentration of power has absolutely nothing to do with fascism inherently, in fact no actual fascist movement has ever concerned itself with any of that as a major goal. Sure those governments sought to make money, but all governments seek to maintain their existence. In the case of fascist governments economic success was about perserving a facade of social improvement to maintain its populist appeal and as a means of funding their militaries, which as I said before was of extreme importance. I realize that I have rambled for some time now, but you managed to stumble upon a pet pieve of mine. You have no idea what fascist means and anyone who calls the Rothschild fascist or having fascist motivations has no idea what they are talking about. It absolutely doesn't deserve to be in the article, as it is not an argument that is even worth any amount of attention or consideration. Just because fascism was about social, cultural, political and economic control does not mean corporations are fascist for simply wanting to perpetuate their existence through market dominance. And yes my friend, you don't need a tin-foil hat to see as you do, you just need logic and knowledge that is as flimsy and discardable as tin foil. And you are also right that the term conspiracy theory often taints what is being labled. That is simply because of the fact that, although conspiracies exist, conspiracy theorists often make outlandish and peculiar arguments based on little to no actual quantifiable evidence and they take such enormious and dubious leaps from the evidence they do have that the arguments become absurd. Conspiracy theorists are their own downfall as they all too often burry any valid critiques they may have within a large pile of baseless ultra paranoia and wholly unbelievable narratives of pure speculation. You, unfortunately, are a prime example of why the term 'conpiracy theories' has such a negative connotation.

Above-- I'm sorry, but your definition of fascism is practically a direct quote of the wiki definition, which is, misleading. Just read the following few sentances to have a better idea of what fascism really is. Again, I'm sorry... but you're mostly off base here.--68.226.66.173 (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Well the Rothschilds certainly are fascist if you look at the economic perspective of fascism. Even Wikipedia itself talks about one characteristic being "corporatism" or the merging of government and big business. I don't see how someone can disagree that the Rothschild family has been involved with this sort of activity and to be honest I find the motives of those defending the Rothschild family in this matter as SUSPECT. There's a difference between being anti-semitic and an anti-Zionist.* Edited by Fatrb38

Prominent members

added Baron Ferdinand de Rothschild and decided to remove

• Amschel Mayer James Rothschild (1955-1996)
• Raphael Benjamin Jacob von Rothschild (1976-2000)

as not esp prominent -- AMJR is mentioned unde Victor Rothschild

This article still need lots of work!!! --mervyn 11:23, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC) youre a d bag

Just why...

...was the Paris branch nationalized? It's mentioned, but not explained.... --Penta 18:44, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Because the Rothschilds were wealthier than the French government.

A total of 39 banks were nationalized under the socialist president Mitterrand. The family was given a compensation package of $100 million, which may have undervalued the firm. It was subsequently reprivatized in 1987 as part of Credit Commercial. See [1], [2], and [3] nadav 07:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Helena Bonham Carter

Why was this person deleted? Her inclusion appears to me to be correct. PatGallacher 15:14, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

She is descended from an illegitimate female-descended line of the family, via marriage, and is not a direct descendent. She is thus not considered even remotely to be a member of the PINDAR Rothschild family. She is, however, due to her genetic background, extremely programmed. There are many descendents of the Rothschilds. Only a select few are legitimate heirs to the Dynasty. Atun

'progammed'??? LOL wut? care to explain what that means? I have feeling its some kind of anti-semitic conspiracy theory crap-

Family Tree

Can somebody add a family tree to this article? It would make the relationships between the indidvidual persons much clearer! 83.216.148.11 2 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)

What's the story regarding the "jewishness" of the current generation, are they a washed out assimilated atheistic/christian group, or are they still a great jewish family supportive of jewish causes?

I would have phrased the question more neutrally, but I was wondering the same thing. So much of the family seems to have married into non-Jewish wealthy families or aristocracy, yet I know the Rothschild foundations still contribute a lot to Israel and Jewish causes. I wonder who in the British and French branches is still technically Jewish today. nadav

Um. I understand what you guys are saying, but what does "technically Jewish" mean? It depends on whether you regard Judaism as purely a religion or primarily an ethnicity. Sammy Davis Jr. was as Jewish as Baron Rothschild since Judaism makes no distinction of "degree" between those born to Jewish parents and those who convert. I believe what you mean to ask is whether many of the current generation of Rothschilds are actively "religious." I get the feeling that most of them are not. That could be said of many people in any western religous group. My wife's family are all -- theoretically -- Roman Catholic, but almost none of them go to mass except on Special Occasions and several of them have divorced and remarried (including my wife). But they still write down "R.C." when filling out forms and I dare say the Rothschilds list themselves as "officially" Jewish. . . . --Michael K. Smith 17:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

By the religious definition, Judaism is matriarchal. Meaning being Jewish is defined by the mother being Jewish at time of birth. This would make many of the family technically non-Jewish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.202.2 (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Could someone detail the arranged marriages between closely-related family members? Incest is hot. Es-won 15:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Waterloo

I have seen it argued, fairly persuasively based on stock and bond prices, that the idea the Rotherchild's had advance knowledge of Waterloo is a myth. I will try and find the source. --Amcalabrese 21:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well yes and no. He did know a day (Tues) ahead of the 'official' news from an account, brought to him by his agent from Ostend, in a Dutch newspaper. He gave that same news to the British Cabinet (Wed morning) but the account was so vague and as rumours were so wild and so frequently wrong they chose not to believe it and kept quiet until they had news from a trusted source - which arrived (in the evening) in the person of one of Wellington's aides de camp Henry Percy. You can cite Elizabeth_Longford Wellington: Pillar of State if need be. Afaik there is no evidence, even though he knew, that he bought up bonds on the cheap between the crucial tues/wed. Whether this was down to not being sure himself of the accuracy or other reasons we can't say at this removeAlci12 16:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

An important ommission is that the Rothschilds' also financed Napoleon during this War. I personally don't have the sources but it is widely documented.

AS(UWO)

From a review of Ferguson: Money's Prophets. "The most widespread Rothschild myth was that Nathan, after receiving news by carrier pigeon of Wellington's victory at Waterloo, made a vast fortune speculating on the rise in British government securities. The reality, says Ferguson, was quite different. The Rothschilds' couriers did alert them first to Napoleon's defeat, but since they had bet big on a protracted military campaign, any quick gains in bonds after Waterloo were too small to offset the disruption to their business."

This is also covered on the discussion page for nathan rothschild —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.86.232 (talk) 13:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Popular culture

Removed the following:

Over the course of almost 250 years of Rothschild family prominence, a great many members have distinguished themselves in business, philanthrophy, science, public service, and as patrons of the arts. Like any family, they have suffered their share of scandals, but the Rothschilds remain today as one of the great and enduring non-royal dynasties.

as fawning, unencyclopaedic and generally unnecessary. --Black Butterfly 14:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I entirely agree -- and I love your use of "fawning"! --Michael K. Smith 17:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Me too!!! Great edit, Black Butterfly!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silhouette7 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Great! Beganlocal (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

coat of arms

Anyone want to locate the coat of arms? They used to be on the Hebrew and German verions of the page, but no more. --Valley2city 00:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It was probably a copyright issue. I am trying to ascertain now whether we can put it back up. It would be interesting if we actually had to ask the family's permission to display their arms. For all I know , that might actually be the law (in the UK at least). nadav 05:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added it now and am claiming fair use. nadav 07:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

How wealthy is the rothschild family?

Where would the rothschild family rank on the forbes' list of richest people?

• They're not on the Forbes list at all because truly wealthy, old-money people are masters at hiding their wealth. As for Forbes, a search of their site turned this up "Although the Rothschilds and their fortune are clouded in secrecy and rumors of global political influence...." http://www.forbes.com/facesinthenews/2007/06/15/rothschild-bank-france-face-markets-cx_ll_0615marketsautofacescan04.html Also on Forbes was a 2002 series on dynasties which purports to estimate the wealth of certain families. The absurdly low estimate for the Rothschilds given is 1.5 billion. From the intro to that series "The names are famous...those who bear them are without question fabulously wealthy. Yet the Rothschilds...don't appear on the Forbes World's Richest People list. Why not? It's a question of degrees...." http://www.forbes.com/people/2002/02/28/0228dynasties.html

A reliable source at the Independent (UK) says "$trillions"

"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."

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article56239.ece

This is a different independent source which basically comes to the same conclusion:

http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/rothschild2.html

Dubious statistic

By the middle of the 19th centry the Rothschild family had become one of the wealthiest family dynasties in the world. Their collective worth was estimated to be over $6 billion.[ref]Frederic Morton, The Rothschilds: Portrait of a Dynasty, 1962. ISBN 1-56836-220-X[/ref] In 1850, the GDP of the United States of America was about $3 billion.

This passage was removed because it is an unfounded assertion, inaccurately quoted. What the Morton citation actually says is:- "The total wealth encompassed by the clan during most of the nineteenth century has been estimated at well over 400 million pounds. No one else, from the Fuggers to the Rockefellers, has come even close to that hair-raising figure." (1962 Secker & Warburg edition) Morton gives no source for his statement. --mervyn 10:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

There has been a tendency to grossly exagerate the wealth of the family and to fail to discern the difference between money owned by the Rothschild family and money managed by the banks owned by the family under discretionary or non-discretionary nominee accounts. The largest business of the family in the mid 19th century was the underwriting in London of French government bonds. France has had a history of inflation and confiscation despite this there were patriotic French who wanted to own French bonds. They felt more secure if they bought bearer bonds issued in London whose ownership the French government were unaware of other than that they had been sold through the Rothschilds. RichardBond (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Amschel Mayer

The link for Amschel Mayer (the son) directs to Mayer Amschel (the father).--Simplesam (talk) 07:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for alert -- now fixed at Amschel Mayer Rothschild. --mervyn (talk) 12:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

Good lord, is there a way to flag an article to Wikipedia to get it; I dunno, cleaned up? Maybe put into a state where it's much harder to edit it? I looked through the "contact Wikipedia" section, but couldn't find anything on flagging an article for it's lack of neutrality. This article obviously needs cleaned up, and is so lacking in neutrality it's insane. So much for looking at Wikipedia to find some objective information regarding this family.

I see one man has taken the task of cleaning it up, and I congratulate him on the task before him. But wow, does this article have a way to go.

(oops, maybe that means that I'm a part of the conspiracy too, and the Rothschilds sent me here! LOL) Airelon (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

PART OF THE CONSPIRACY ...i believe you are!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.255.70.210 (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not see how it is bias, It is difficult to put a neutral light on men who do nothing but evil so I do not blame the editers, but the Rothschild themselves. However I am sure some one has criticized the conspiracy theorys about them so in order to balance the article a bit we should put that in their. Also I believe that the family has donated to charity from time to time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.212.89 (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Derivation of name

Curiously missing is the fairly well-known story that the original family house in their Germanic state had a "red shield" on it, fixed by the post office to be able to deliver mail in the 1700s or so. (Amd other Germanic names from the same sort of thing. There are apparently Greenschild, etc. and probably many other emblems). Student7 (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Misuse of privileged information?

The Article says: "The four brothers helped co-ordinate activities across the continent, and the family developed a network of agents, shippers and couriers to transport gold – and information – across Europe. This private intelligence service 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"

It would be nice if this article pointed out how, when, and how much, they enriched themselves over other peoples backs by using priveleged pre-information.

OK. According to Alistaire Horne's La Belle France (New York, A. A. Knopf, 2005, p. 243) "Their famous carrier pigeons were able to bring vital political and commercial news far more swiftly than the diplomats could." The approximate time frame being described would be around 1850. Dick Kimball (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Where did they get their money from

If even governments didn't have the possibilities to create or raise enough money, then where did the Rothschild's get their money from. It couldn't have been from their poor underpriveleged Jewish folksmen, could it? So where did they get it from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.243.40 (talk) 06:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand, it was originally in gold that the patriarch of the family got from royalty in selling trinkets to members of the royal family, and then to others. And used that gold then to start banks, based on the rate of exchange for gold with a profit margin then factored in. Then amassed all the gold, and started printing paper currency, with even more profit then factored in.

And the U.S. does have the capability to issue its own currency, and that is what they are most afraid of. That we will. Two presidents tried it. Both met untimely ends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgg530 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC) William Richard Baker a known critic of socialism

Net value estimate

I have been listening to Alfred Webre's Exopolitics Radio and have heard him assert on numerous occasions that the estimated net worth of the Rothschild family is US$100 trillion – a substantial amount (in comparison he states that the Rockefeller family is worth one tenth of this, i.e. US$10 trillion). Now, I have yet to hear him cite a reference for this estimate, but listening today to Season 3 the review episode #8, time 6:30, he elaborates somewhat by saying that the Rothschild family net value "has been statistically determined in very lengthy report to be US$100 trillion". Does anyone know what report Webre is referring to? __meco (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

       It probably has something to do with the Ring of Power (I heard $50 Trillion) my guess is in reference to art

real estate, bonds and futures.96.49.141.252 (talk) 06:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Changed name from Bauer

I have also heard from various conpiracy-related sources that the family was originally called Bauer but that they adopted the Rothschild name. Since there is no mention of this in the article, does anyone have any verifiable information about this? __meco (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It is sometimes mentioned in old narratives that Mayer Amschel Rothschild's father changed his name from Bauer, but recent authoritative biographies reject this. --mervyn (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I have a biography of Rothschild by Herbert Lottman, the official biography of this family in France, where it says exactly that: the father of Mayer Amschel was Bauer, and he changed it to Rothschild by a red shield which adorned the facade of his father's business. Then Mayer Amschel Rothschild was the first.

This is not a source of conspiracy ... I think those who are conspiring are the Rothschild.

Sorry for my syntax, my English is essential and this is a machine translation with Google.--Estelamargentina12 (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Interesting comments ladies and gentlemen - The Australian Crown —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.150.190 (talk) 08:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I've read about this too, and when I looked at the article I was surprised to see that there was no mention of the name change. I remember it relating to the fact that he wanted to get away from having an obviously Jewish name and the stigma attached to it. Also that he chose Rothschild because of the strength implied by it as it was German for Red Shield. 99.240.146.252 (talk) 02:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Tear this down and rebuild it from the ground

Since this article is so poorly referenced, how about starting it new from scratch? This goes especially for the "Descendants" section: no references, therefore no way to know if the names and dates are accurate.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It certainly needs work! Has been on my "to do" list for a long time but have avoided it apart from some tidying and removing conspiracy nonsense. Not sure if it needs starting from scratch, but interested to know how you would tackle it. The descendents section could be cleaned by grouping into generations - some of those listed are self evident as children/grandchildren of MAR, but there is far too much there and there is a Categ anyway. Perhaps more use could be made of directs to the articles on "Rothschild family of ... " which another User started. --mervyn (talk) 07:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No References To United States Banking

No references to the United States and control of the Federal Reserve, since Rothschild Bank of London is a major owner of the U.S. Federal Reserve. Was this kept out purposely? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgg530 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It's safe to assume at this point in this article's history on Wikipedia that something of this nature (U.S. Banking and Rothschild, etc.) would NOT be placed onto this article without proper sourcing, which this page lacks in significance. The page should be shut down and re started with appropriate fact checking and sourcing, something that Wikipedia stands by! Mike D (talk) 08:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of section titled "Conspiracy theories

I removed the following section as it is unfounded and unsubstantiated speculation with sources that do not meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources. This article, and Wikipedia itself, is a serious presentation of documented facts from reliable sources. Rantings from Ezra Pound do not belong here but certainlt do in his own artice. If the rest of this stuff even belongs in Wikipedia, which I doubt, some information from 'proven reliable sources referencing facts might be be placed in the conspiracy theory article. Handicapper (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason I re-inserted the conspiracy theory section is because the theories themselves, however false or ridiculous they may be, are of huge historical importance, and because I provided Niall Ferguson's commentary on them which gives the section balance. Of course better sources should be provided for the book Currency Wars, which has been discussed in the economist if you can dig up the article. 86.26.0.25 (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

In Fritz Springmeier's book Bloodlines of the Illuminati, he argues that the Rothschild family is one of 13 dynastic bloodlines linked to the Illuminati. New World Order conspiracy theories present the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Phipps', DuPonts, Vanderbilts, Bush family, etc. as the real rulers or would-be rulers of the world.

The poet and Fascist sympathizer Ezra Pound; in his World War II radio propaganda broadcasts from Fascist Italy, openly named the Rothschilds as the masters of a clique of banking houses that caused the World Wars in order to profit from them and get countries in debt to the lending central banks, which Pound claimed the Rothschild interests owned and exercised control of a nation's policy by having the power to issue the nation's money. Earlier, in 1935, Pound had speculated that "organized anti-Semitism might be the hidden war of Swiss Protestant dynasties against the Rothschilds, whom they had never forgiven for breaking into their banking monopoly."

According to the book Currency Wars written by a Chinese writer Song Hongbing, Rothschild Family has a wealth of $5 trillion dollars. This well exceeds the wealth of Bill Gates, who has $40 billion dollars. The book claims that Rothschild family has provoked many wars in order to expand their financial empire. The book claims that these include the Battle of Waterloo when, the book claims, the Rothschild family found out the result of the battle before anyone and eventually overtook the Bank of England. Discussing the book and similar conspiracy theories, the historian Niall Ferguson wrote: "As we have seen, however, wars tended to hit the price of existing bonds by increasing the risk that a debtor state would fail to meet its interest payments in the event of defeat and losses of territory. By the middle of the 19th century, the Rothschilds had evolved from traders into fund managers, carefully tending to their own vast portfolio of government bonds. Now having made their money, they stood to lose more than they gained from conflict. The Rothschilds had decided the outcome of the Napoleonic Wars by putting their financial weight behind Britain. Now they would... sit on the sidelines."

Rothschild family connection to the U.S. - true or simply anti-Semitism?

I continue to see online, and even heard offline by people I've met, in particular people from the UK, who continue to insist that this family somehow controls the U.S. Federal Reserve and banking system. There seems to be no real sources for this, it appears to be some sort of conspiracy theory or perhaps a theory rooted in anti-Semitism because of the Rothschild's Jewish background. Are there any sources to confirm any of these theories? Again, I've noticed it appears to be a very popular theory in the UK, especially among leftists, which makes me wonder if there was some sort of documentary on it, or if it's simply rooted in anti-Semitism. 72.39.210.23 (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Needs some (appropriate, small, and neutral) mention of antisemitism

A large fraction of discussions of the Rothschild family, in the US and UK, involves the antisemitic allegation that they somehow control world finance. Although this is odious, it is very noteworthy, and has been discussed in numerous scholarly works on antisemitism. The absence of that fact in this article is, although polite, not quite encyclopedic. I propose to add a new, small section at the bottom of this article, just a few sentences, summarizing the discussion as described in books such as "Antisemitism: a historical encyclopedia" and "Antisemitism: myth and hate from antiquity to the present". Any comments? --Noleander (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I propose to add a new section at the bottom, titled "Antisemitic allegations" and include text something like: "The Rothschild family is frequently the target of antisemitic allegations that they control many banks, manipulate world financial markets, and control the United States Federal Reserve". The citations are

Any comments or suggestions for improvement? --Noleander (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll go ahead and put some text in as described above, although I think the title "Allegations of control of world finances" may be more precise than "Antisemitic allegations" since many of the allegations, as reported by secondary sources, have no mention of religion. --Noleander (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

IP 86.26.0.25 ... if you have any suggested improvements to the new section, could you discuss them here first? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 06:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Complaint about User:Mbz1 and his POV edits

I shall refrain from continuing an edit war with this user. I have just restored his POV edits and he has come back with an edit war citing erroneous and untrue rationale. The Political bias of this editor so transparent and I shall be making a complaint. Vexorg (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of record the edit warrior called User:Mbz1 has claimed the section entitled 'Zionism' is POV and has changed it to 'Connections to Israel' - He/she has also removed the category Zionism from the article. There is no logical rational for these edits and one can only conclude that the user has a political motivation for not wanting the word 'Zionism' to be associated with the Rothschild. I have tried to restore these POV edits but User:Mbz1 is insistent upon edit warring and I have refrain from continuing such a war. Vexorg (talk) 06:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Further comments on this issue and the erroneous claims made by User:Mbz1 -- There was no violation of WP:BLP by having the section entitled Zionism or the category Zionism. Even though some of the Rothshilds may have opposed the creation of Israel the family has broadly been Zionist supporters. They were the agents between the Zionist Federation and the British government ( Arthur Balfour in particular it seems ) in 1917 and 1919 ) and members of the family paid fore the Knesset and Israeli supreme court buildings, etc,etc - Suport of Zionism is notable within the Rothshild family and therefore completely appropriate to entitled the section Zionism,and add the Zionism category, even if not all members of the family supported the creation of Israel. WP:BLP should be applied however on a case by case on articles of individual members of this family. Vexorg (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Adding the word "are" is wp:BLP violation [4];[5];[6];[7];[8]? --Mbz1 (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

mbz1: I dont fully understand your point. Can you explain it some more? Clearly, many prominent members of the R. family were strong supporters of the state of Israel, and labeling them "zionists" is accurate and neutral. Are you mostly concerned with present tense/past tense? The article includes many persons who are deceased, and _were_ supporters of Israel, but just because they died is no reason to remove all mention of that support, true? Can you clarify, please? --Noleander (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The Rothchilds are Zionists, well I never heard that before, that is really the first time I have ever heard that, amazing, I thought they were just a rch buisness family.. Off2riorob (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

There's plenty of sources that show the Rothschild involvement with the Zionist Federation, The British Government regarding the allocation of Palestine to the Zionists, the funding of Jewish land as a pre-text to the creation of Israel, the funding of the Knesset and the funding of the Israeli Supreme Court building. this isn't the place to discuss your lack of knowledge regarding the Rothschilds however. Vexorg (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Off2riobob: So, you have no objection to restoring the Category link? --Noleander (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I have mentioned this previously, colloquially in Britain a Zionist has come imo and likely citable if I looked, has become synonymous with extremist and looked on with negative overtones and according to Vegorg a Zionist is anyone who supports Israel, I once had a row with him when he added to the tony blair article that blair was a Zionist. Personally I would prefer it not to be replaced as it attaches itself to the whole family, it would sit more honestly on the individual biographies about the individuals that actually were involved, however I find all this nationalistic stuff distasteful and will take this article off my watchlist after this comment, effectively rendering myself out of the discussion, so yes feel fre to replace it at your consensus, thank you for the very decent requesting my comment, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The term Zionist is most certainly NOT a term synonymous with extremism. The term Zionist is as described in the wikipedia article. it's just a neutral description. Off2riobob said "Personally I would prefer it not to be replaced as it attaches itself to the whole family" - No it doesn't do that any more than "connections to Israel" does. - The reason Zionism should be the section title rather than "Connections to Israel" is that some of the Rothschilds were dealing with the Zionist Federation, buying land in Palestine, etc, etc well before Israel was even created. See Balfour Declaration 1917. On that basis I shall return the section title to Zionism. Vexorg (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore Off2riorob tells two untruths. 1] I did not say anyone who supports Israel is a Zionist, and I didn't say Tony Blair was a Zionist. I said he is a member of a Zionist Lobby group. Thankyou! Vexorg (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Get over, you said to me that Blair was a zionist, don't make me have to go find the diff, you said that iyo anyone that supported Israel in any way was a Zionist..also your change to the section header is also wrong, I tire of reverting your labeling of all and sundry as zionists and zionist organizations, we can start a thread here to see what opinion is. Off2riorob (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Section header change to Zionism

[copying my comments from above] The term Zionist is most certainly NOT a term synonymous with extremism. The term Zionist is as described in the wikipedia article. it's just a neutral description. Off2riobob said "Personally I would prefer it not to be replaced as it attaches itself to the whole family" - No it doesn't do that any more than "connections to Israel" does. - The reason Zionism should be the section title rather than "Connections to Israel" is that some of the Rothschilds were dealing with the Zionist Federation, buying land in Palestine, etc, etc well before Israel was even created. See Balfour Declaration 1917. On that basis I shall return the section title to Zionism.

I don't think that Zionism is an improvement to what the previous section header was, Connections to Israel, in fact I find the old header to be more correct as per MOS and reflective of the actual content in the section, what are other editors opinion as regards this. Off2riorob (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

How can it be more reflective of the content of the section? Much of the content of the section is about events and issues that happened WAY BEFORE Israel was even in existence. You seem to be ignoring the Rothschild's connections to Zionism from the early 20th century,especially their dealings with the British Govenrment and the ZIONIST FEDERATION. Your argument seems to be biased by your erroneous claim that Zionism is a pejorative term in the UK. Well Wikipedia is not restricted to the UK it is a worldwide encyclopaedia. Vexorg (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the title to 'Zionism and Israel' Vexorg (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Off2riobob are you the IP 173.120.203.243 in order to avoid a 3RR ? Please answer honestly. I shall file a checkuser report on this IP soon to find out for sure. Two editors have reverted the rationale-less reversions by this IP now. Vexorg (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob has just put the following message on my talk page -- "You are repeatedly inserting Zion to the Rothschild article, you should move to discussion , stuffing it in is not a good long term solution and disrupts the article." - This is a clear untruth. As you can see I HAVE put my rationale here in the talk page BEFORE making the edits. In fact I even compromised by changing the the section title from Zionism to Zionism and Israel. Off2riorob on the other hand jsut reverted ( and possibly twice more as IP 173.120.203.243) without making further discussion here. Soon I shall file an edit war report against Off2riorob Vexorg (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

So Off2riorob can you tell us what you mean by "repeatedly inserting 'Zion'" ??? - You do know that a Rothshild supported the Zionist federation's desire to create the Zionist State in Palestine don't you and acted as agent between Arthur Balfour and the Zionist Federation in 1917 as recipient of the Balfour Declaration? Why do you have such a big problem with 'Zionism' and a seeming desire to avoid it being mentioned where people support Zionism? You have told untruths, this time by posting a message at my talk page and claiming I should take the issue to this talk page before making my edits. Yet had you bothered to actually read this talk page you would see I am very active in pursuing discussion here, and did so BEFORE making my edits. I ma find it very hard to assume good faith on your part and I smell POV here. Vexorg (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I see I'm the only one willing to discuss this since the last few edits. Another editor Mbz1 with a proven POV record who is currently topic banned from Israel/Palestine articles has made a revert without discussion. I shall not revert until a reasonable time has elapsed though. Vexorg (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the sources provided in the article, none of them claim the Rothschilds were Zionists. Am I missing something? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, multiple sources do not refer to the family as the Zionist Rothchilds, multiple editors object to this change, repeatedly inserting it against talkpage consensus is a bit bothersome. as is Vexorg saying he fully intends to revert again.Off2riorob (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy yes you are not getting it. For the section title to be called Zionism and Israel, the Rothschilds do/did not have to be Zionists. The Rothschilds ( or some of them ) were involved with the Zionist Federation and the creation of Israel. And Off2riorob yes I will revert after a reasonable period of time has elapsed to allow for more discussion. Why? becuase the Rothschilds were involved with the Zionist movement quite extensively. Why do you have such a problem with the mention of Zionism, even when Zionism is involved? Vexorg (talk)

Off2riobob are you the IP 173.120.203.243 ?

NMMNG is correct. If we are going to use the expression "Zionist" to describe one or more Rothchilds, we should have an RS that we can point to that calls him or her that. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons below is correct in noting that since not all of the Rothschilds were "involved in the Zionist movement quite extensively" using "Zionism" as a catch-all section title is misleading. Add to that that we should have a consensus for the use of that word, as we do any other word over which there is a dispute. The WP:BURDEN is on the one who wishes to add material to an article, ie the one who wants to include the word "Zion" or "Zionist." No one here has a "problem" with that word except perhaps you, Vexorg. Since Zionism can mean different things to different people, it is best to leave it to the RS rather than trying to edit-war an expression into an article. It looks to me as if you do not have consensus to add your change and by continually reverting would be displaying disruptive editing behavior.

Unfortunately anon you haven't provided any rationale above. I have provided WP:BURDEN. And with that in mind I suggest you aquaint yourself with the 1917 Balfour Declaration. You are citing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and that applies to all the editors who are not listening to the rationale I have provided. There is NOTHING Disruptive about including correct information. Of anything those who are displying WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT would be more in lien with the label disruptive Vexorg (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Do we even need this section in this article?

So some of the Rothschilds were supporters of the independence of Israel, some were not. Sounds like this should be covered in the articles about the individual Rothschilds, not in an article about the family itself. In fact, whether the section header is Zionism or Connections to Israel, in both cases it is misleading given that apparently only individual family members had a stance, not the family itself. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 06:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That makes some sense. Stellarkid (talk) 07:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The Rothchild family, who are the subject of this article, were not Zionists as far as I can tell. Perhaps individual Rothchilds were, in which case their individual articles should reflect that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent way of handling this dispute. In fact, lumping and putting them all together under a heading of Israel or Zionism is rather WP:OR Stellarkid (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not surprising that Stellarkid wants to remove the section, given his/her political stance as shown in several disruptive Arbitration reports over the last few weeks. And no it's not misleading. Several Rothschilds were supporters of Zionism and the plan to create Israel. The section does NOT lump them altogether whatsoever. The section CLEARLY states that it is not referring to ALL Rothshilds. Further the case of any Rothchilds being Zionists is not the point. It's about the connection of several Rothschilds to Zionism, not necessarily that they were actualy Zionists themselves. Vexorg (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this issue still being discussed ? The Independent article 'The Rothschild story: A golden era ends for a secretive dynasty' used as a ref is about the entire set of people referred to as the Rothschild family and it covers this issue at the general level and very briefly.

"And the family split over the question of the dream of a Jewish homeland, with some members supporting the first Zionist settlement in Palestine and the Balfour declaration and others opposing it on the grounds that it would encourage anti-Semites to question the existing national identities of assimilated Jews around the rest of the world."

If it's okay for The Independent then it should be okay for us to cover the issue at the general level and very briefly. Admittedly you could probably select a set of people at random and get the same split over the question but The Independent deemed it noteworthy. Given the current content of that section I think the 'Connections to Israel' heading is fine, not that I see anything problematic about the title being Zionism, it's just a less accurate summary of the current contents. I don't really follow the argument for exclusion/dispersion being used here. This article is about a set of people that happen to form a family. Many articles are about sets of people and they include information about individual members of the set or discuss/contrast aspects of different subsets of the set e.g. within a political party for example. Another example that springs to mind is the Human Rights Watch article. HRW are a set of people and I haven't seen arguments being made there that information should be completely excluded from that article on the basis that it relates to an individual member of that set rather than the entire set. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The section ought to be included if it is a WP:NOTABLE fact about the Rothschild family. I don't see what the issue surrounding the use of the term "Zionism" is. I would agree with comments above re finding RS that actually uses the term. Could I make a compromise suggestion? "Zionism and connections to Israel". As mentioned above, as the section might not apply to all members of the family, this should be explicity noted in the section so as not to raise any BLP objections. Whatever we do, we should probably have a healthy discussion and agree not to edit war this before the discussion is over. NickCT (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)