Talk:Rothschild family/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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 December 2004 (UTC)

...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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Where would the rothschild family rank on the forbes' list of richest people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.211.113 (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• 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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.249.234 (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.59.36.3 (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.59.36.3 (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

---

Yes, I agree that this article leaves out much important information, including the name change. Yes, I agree that those who are conspiring are the Rothschild's. The wouldn't like scrutiny. They were Bauers, they changed the name to Rothschild because of a red shield on the door of the gold smith's home and business. This article flatters them too much. They were loan sharks, then they were war-profiteers, and now the second richest person alive is a Rothschild. I am unsure that the reason the name "Bauer" was discarded was to sound more German. Bauer is a German name, isn't it? Maybe they were eager for an alias because the very likely had a bad reputation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.158.237 (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

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.^[1]

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."^[2]

According to the book Currency Wars written by a Chinese writer Song Hongbing, Rothschild Family has a wealth of $5 trillion dollars.^[3] 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."^[4]

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)

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^[5][6][7][8]

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)

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)

[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)

Could you please limit yourself to discussing the content and not the contributors? Thank you. Stellarkid (talk) 02:04, 7 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)

I already changed it from "Zionism" to "Zionism and Israel" as both a compromise and as it was more accurate. But sadly for those with a clear history of political agenda to diminish the presence of the word Zionism on Wikipedia it wasn't enough. I've already applied by rationale several times but these editors are suffering from hard of hearing and are ignoring the FACT the Rothschilds were involved with the Zionist Federation at least back in 1917 way way before Israel even existed. I do wonder why some are so ashamed of Zionism? Vexorg (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, User Vexorg is campaigning and notifying people that support his position about this discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

This is called canvassing and it not appropriate. [9]-[10] The two users who have been canvassed here are Unomi and NickCt. This canvassing comes immediately after I noted that we did not have a consensus to change the section title to Zionism.Stellarkid (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear Off2riorob has an edit history of removing the mention of Zionism from wikipedia where ever possible. And also just to be clear Off2riorob has a history of edit warring with myself. And just to be clear Vexorg thinks the more editors involved the more value the eventual consensus will be Vexorg (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

And just to be clear can talk tell us whether he was the IP 173.120.203.243 edit warring in this article a couple of days ago? Vexorg (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Contacting editors with a clear support for your position is clear canvassing and is not allowed. Your repeated accusations against me being a sock puppet when you report was closed as a bad faith request is also becoming uncivil, if you continue with your unsupported claims and canvassing the outcome will be a report against you. Off2riorob (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Another untruth, No, I am not continuing to make the accusation. I am simply asking you if you were IP 173.120.203.243. it's not an accusation it's a simple question requiring a yes or no answer. You continual refusal to answer the question is something for other editors to make up their mind about. I have asked 2 other independent editors to make comment here. That is not canvassing. It is for the better of Wikipedia that more editors the better the consensus. The fact that you are spinning it as canvassing is simply becuase of your obvious personal agenda against me. Vexorg (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I will support all my comments with diffs, I assure you have no personal agenda against you either good or bad, it is your editing that I am bothered about. This is not one up man ship, your report of me under that ip address was closed as a bad faith accusation your continued accusatory questioning about it should stop. Off2riorob (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I disagree, it wasn't bad faith, it was a genuine concern. If you answer the question then the matter is closed and IMO it would be in good to do so.Vexorg (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

So you will continue to WP:hound him or her until and unless he decides to answer your question to your satisfaction? Please stop with the bad faith accusations and continued accusatory questioning of Off2riorob and try to deal with content and not contributors. Thank you . Stellarkid (talk) 02:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The current section certainly does not leave the impression that the question of Israel was more than a question concerning only some individual family members. But the article in The Independent implies that it was a question concerning the whole family as it caused a rift. So if sources can be found that corrobate the rift in the family it might be of interest. In fact, the article in The Independent also discusses the Jewish identity of the family, and I think that this would be a worthwile topic for this Wikipedia, and the appropriate place to discuss how the Israel question divided the family.

And re: Vexorg, I find your incivility and personal attacks here on this talk page completely unacceptable and not helpful at all. Same applies for your canvassing. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record: I find your false accusations that I have been uncivil and making personal attacks here offensive. Vexorg (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The section title is (at this moment) "Connections to Israel" which seems like a neutral, informative title. Since several members of the family did play a prominent role in creation of the country, it seems appropriate to include some mention of that fact in the article. Yes, the information should also be in the articles about the individual family members, but this article should also summarize the information, and include links to those individual articles. Removing the information from this article increases the likelihood that readers browsing the encyclopedia will fail to see (accurate, reliable) information that may be useful to them. --Noleander (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Technically "the creation of the country" of Israel is Zionism. Might be appropriate to include the term by your reasoning Noleander.

@off2riorob - for the record, I don't now, nor have I ever unconditionally supported Vexorg's opinions. I think reading my last comment makes that clear. NickCT (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You came here from a request from User Vexorg, I prefer not to have to go through your edit history but I will if you like. It is clear canvassing of editors that support his position. Off2riorob (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

(sigh)... AGF my friend and stick to the subject at hand. What's wrong with the compromise language? Sean has now provided RS using the term. Is this enough for you? NickCT (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Then go ahead and add the RS Nick Vexorg (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Please, there is nothing regarding good faith about canvassing. Off2riorob (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

A complaint, with diffs of his canvassing, should be filed against Vexorg. Perhaps the best place, since he is a single purpose account in I/P dispute articles, would be WP:WPAE. If not AN/I. 173.52.124.223 (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Check through my edit history. I am not a single purpose account. Vexorg (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

In fact your block log is even more instructive. As if the way you derail the discussion by attacking other editors and by cancassing is not evidence enough. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Firstly I have not been canvassing, I have asked just two other independent editors to make comment here. I did not offer any 'canvassing'. That is not canvassing. It is for the better of Wikipedia that more editors the better the consensus. Secondly it speaks more of your possible agenda to drag up old blocks which have already been dealt with. I will always defend myself against accusations from other editors and that is my right. You are calling that a derail and again it speaks volumes about any possible agenda you might have here. if anything your focus on myself is a derail. Vexorg (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Guys! Gals! I know this is allot to ask, but can we stick to the point rather than lodging accussations? NickCT (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

@173.52.124.223 - Do you have a user account? Please login. NickCT (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Back to the Subject at Hand

Sadly once again we see editors more concerned about attacking other editors than the subject at hand, so back to the subject at hand. I several times stated my rationale for calling the section Zionism or Zionism and Israel - the involvment of the Rothschilds with Zionism goes way back before Israel was created. The 1917 Balfour Declaration is a notable example. So just to call the section 'Connections to Israel' is not accurate IMO. I originally reverted the section title to 'Zionism' a long time 'ago' - [It was called 'Zionism' way before I even first saw the article]. Since a recent content dispute I made a good compromise and called the section Zionism and Israel instead of just Zionism. Like NickCT I cannot understand the effort put in to avoid the use of the term Zionism. Vexorg (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Because individual Rothschilds were involved with Zionism or whatever you want to call it, not the Rothschild family. To label a section Zionism is misleading to say the least. The only way this is potentially relevant to this article is the implication of The Independent article that the question of Israel causes a rift within the family. That would be relevant for this article, but I would need to see more sources with more details. A section that would be viable in this article would be a section about the Jewish identity of the Rothschild family members, and this section could also include a short discussion of the support or the opposition for the Zionist movement as long as it has relevance for the family as a whole or relations between the family members, and not just individual family members. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons there is nothing misleading about 'Zionism' and more or less than there is with the title 'Israel' - Your argument above is moot. Vexorg (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with with Demon's re "include a short discussion of the support or the opposition for the Zionist movement". Perhaps an appropriate section title would Positions on Zionism and Links to Israel. This title would account for the fact that there was a rift within the family. NickCT (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I would go with Positions on Zionism and Links to Israel as suggested by talk Vexorg (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, include a short discussion in a larger section on the Jewish identity of the Rothschild family. But having a dedicated section on their relations to Israel is rather a violation of WP:UNDUE, given the minor importance for the Rothschild family. And before that I would like to see some sources that indeed show that the question of Israel caused a rift within the family. The Independent suggest it, without giving any details so I am not convinced yet. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I highly disagree that the section is WP:UNDUE at all. The content of the current section is succinct and neatly wrapped in the section. The contention is the subject title. Vexorg (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ok Vexorg. Let's see if we can get consensus on this proposal. As a side note, probably not good to get too riled up on this subject. You know how quickly "some" editors will arbitrate. Best speak calmly in the face of agression, lest your words be twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools. If your logic is good, your view will eventually prevail. Perhaps not today, perhaps not tomorrow, but eventually. All the best, NickCT (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

yes thanks NickCT, you make good points. Editors who a re trigger happy with arbitration have shot themselves in the foot in that regard lately. I will continue to apply my logic in spite of the obvious political agendas wishing to over ride it. Vexorg (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"obvious political agendas " might not be helpful language. :-( NickCT (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

how else do you describe an "obvious political agenda" ?? Vexorg (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't describe "obvious political agenda"s. It's like bad body odor. We all know some people have it, but saying so could be construed as a personal attack. NickCT (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

At Demons re "relations to Israel is rather a violation of WP:UNDUE" - How do you know thier relations aren't WP:NOTABLE? We have at least one RS dedicated to discussing it. Perhaps you suggestion about "seeing some sources" is right. Further research would be good. Vexorg - If you have time, could you point to RS covering Israel and the Rothschilds? NickCT (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on the 1917 Balfour Declaration is a good place to start. This article has sourced the Rothschild bankrolling of the Knesset and Israeli supreme court building. There was an Independent article mentioned above. The Rothschilds also funded Jewish Land purchases IIRC, but I'd have to go and find some sources for that. Vexorg (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Because the one source presented here, The Independent, discusses in the detail their Jewish identity and only in passing their relation to Israel and the early Zionists. Not surprising given the long history of the Rothschilds, and the in comparison short history of Zionism and Israel. And no, Vexorg is really the last one whom we should involve here, given his or her unwillingness to actually engage in a civil debate on the content. Proof, see just above the claims about his opponents political agenda. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Please knock it off. I am the one most willing to debate here. I even started this subsection to get the topic back on track. You are the one trying to drag it back to personal attacks. You even dragged it to my talk page, and I swiftly removed your offensiveness. Please stop already. Vexorg (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"trying to drag it back to personal attacks. You even dragged it to my talk page" Not helpful.

"Vexorg is really the last one whom we should involve here, given his or her unwillingness to actually engage in a civil debate " Not helpful. NickCT (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it is actually helpful as Vexorgs incivility and accusation of political motives make any discussion about content with this editor very difficult to impossible. Vexorg claims to have started a new subsection to get the discussion back on track; but then this new subsection again attacked other editors. So much for his willingness to discuss content only. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Patience is a virtue. NickCT (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"given the long history of the Rothschilds, and the in comparison short history of Zionism and Israel" Would agree with this. But Zionism and Rothschild still seems WP:NOTABLE. To avoid WP:RECENTISM, perhaps this subject deserves it's own article? NickCT (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

But not notable enough for a dedicated subsection, at least according to the sources presented here. The Independent discusses the issue of their Jewish identity in detail, but their connections to Israel are only discussed in passing. I am not sure about a dedicated article, it seems that many other aspects of this family are of a larger interest and of more notability, but then why not? Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The current contents of the subsection are more than notable enough to be in a subsection.Vexorg (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually the corresponding article on the German wikipedia gives a good indication of noteworthy topics to include, much more so than the support opposition of individual family members for Israel. The article discusses for example how marriages were used to ensure the cohesion of the family, how the family communicated in age with no phone and telegraph, and other issues. Far more notable, far more interesting. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

So include them in the article then. However mone of that is any reason as an argument against a subection called Zionism and IsraelVexorg (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Well I'm signing off for now. It think this is something to ponder, and I think there is space to find consensus here. I think if we make an effort we can come to an amicable solution. NickCT (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

How about "The Rothschilds and Zionism"? That would remove any implicit suggestion in the title that the Rothschilds were in support of it - which it appears, they were not as a group. Gatoclass (talk) 07:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Demons. The fact it is mentioned in passing in a newspaper that some Rothchilds supported Zionism and some were against it doesn't seem to warrant a section in this article, IMO. If the newspaper said some of them were tall and some short would we putting that in as well? The notability of this with regard to the whole family seems pretty tenuous to me. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"mentioned in passing in a newspaper" ??? - You've only got to read the content of what's already in the article to see that it's much more than that. What about the Balfour Declaration of 1917. The Rothschilds were central to the links between the British Government and the Zionist Federation. Vexorg (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

More sources

• Western imperialism in the Middle East 1914-1958 by David Kenneth Fieldhouse, published by Oxford University Press. Page 133:

  Another centre of early British Zionism was the senior branch of the British branch of the Rothschild family. This was split over Zionism, but Nathan Rothschild, who became the first professing Jew to enter the House of Lords in 1885, and Walter, who succeeded him in 1915, were strong Zionists. Closely connected with them were Lady Crewe (Lady Margaret Primrose), daughter of Lord Rosebury by his wife Hannah, born a Rothschild, and her brother Neil Primrose.

  Also mentions the involvement of Lord Rothschild in drafting the Balfour Declaration just above this paragraph.
• A shattered peace: Versailles 1919 and the price we pay today by David Andelman, published by John Wiley and Sons. On page 88:

  Even the Rothschilds - perhaps the single most powerful and wealthy Jewish family in Europe, with members scattered across England, france and Germany - held sharply divergent views on the prospect of a Jewish homeland. In Paris, Baron Edmond de Rothschild had been a benefactor of a Jewish Palestine for decades since his earliest assistance to kibbutz settlements in the nineteenth century. His son James, an eccentric and arrogant young man who affected a monocle, had joined the army and, during the war, was stationed with Allied forces in Palestine. England was home to two Rothschild branches: Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild, the British patron of Zionism; and Leopold de Rothschild, furiously anti-Zionist, together with his wife, Lady Leopold, who was pathologically opposed to the creation of a Jewish state. Weizmann needed to separate the two families if he was to win his goal of public British support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

There are many more sources discussing Zionism and the Rothschild family. I believe these establish the notability of the topic in a discussion of this family's history. Indeed, their views on Zionism were seen as important to Zionists themselves and those of them who supported the Zionist movement played a key role in establishing its early institutions. Lots more sources can be provided if people are unconvinced. Suggest those seeking to add this information use google book searches to find RS' on the subject. Tiamut^talk 10:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Once again, this is an article about the Rothschild family, not about individual family members or individual branches of the family. The sources above, apparently the result of googling Zionism+Rothschild, discuss individual members or branches of the family. A look at those books that are actually devoted to the subject of the Rothschild family, for example "The Rothschilds: Portrait of a Dynasty" by Frederic Morton shows that Zionism and Israel was at best a footnote in the history of this family. It would be better if editors improve the article by using authoritative sources on the family itself. That is certainly better than introducing random information found via googling certain keywords. As I said already several times a topic that deserves inclusion as it concerns the whole family is their Jewish identity, and that maybe would allow us to mention the support of some family members for the creation of Israel. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 11:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. All this stuff belongs in the articles of the individual Rothchilds, not an article about the family as a family. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

@Demons - Are you down playing the power of googling!?!? Shame!!! (chuckle) Regardless, I think I'm in agreement that having a subsection named "Zionism" would be WP:UNDUE and possibly WP:RECENTISM. Perhaps the solution here is for a larger more inclusive subsection title? How about Jewish Identity, Links to Israel and Zionism. All those topics combined seem like they would be WP:NOTABLE against the larger context of the family as a whole? NickCT (talk) 12:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

A Jewish Identity section would probably be appropriate. Putting "links to Israel and Zionism" in the title just so you can say "some did and some didn't" seems coatrackish to me. Could we call it "Jewish identity and links to dairy" if I found something saying some of them liked cheese while others hated it? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

(chuckle) But "dairy" and "Jewish identity" don't have anything to do with each other. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that someone with a "Jewish identity" must necessarily have positions on Zionism either for or against, but I'm saying that if they do, the two subjects seem to fit together, no? Similiar to a catholic having a position on the clergy abuse scandal. It's a subject necessarily tied to the religion.

And why "coatrackish"? I have a feeling that a number of people approach this thing with the sentiment that "Zionist" is somekind of dirty word. It is not. It means someone who supports the foundation of the nation state of Israel. I don't see how applying the term can be contrued as an attack. NickCT (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Zionism is a dirty word. I just don't think that whether individual Rothchilds were for or against Zionism belongs in this article, since it's not important information about the family which is the topic here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'd certainly partly agree. I'm on the fence as to whether the Zionism is WP:NOTABLE in the context of the family (at least, as an entire subsection). I think we all agree that the "Jewish Identity" is. The subsection title I suggested above strikes me as a nice compromise. Why not use that title, and include 1 or 2 sentences about the issue? Though I'm not too informed on this subject, I think that could arguable constitute due coverage? NickCT (talk) 13:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Why does it need to be in the section title if it's just going to be one or two sentences? Particularly since it's mainly going to say "some were and some weren't"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I only envisage the entire subsection as 10 sectences or so. If 2 sentences are about Zionism, it doesn't seem to inappropriate to mention it in the title. Again, I'm only really 50/50 on this. You know Verx is going to be 100%. I understand you're against including "Zionism" in the subsection title, but I think if you make this concession, especially after it's been "diluted" (as in my proposed subsection title above), you'll find find we can achieve something that looks at least somewhat like NPOV and can avoid future edit warring. NickCT (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's "somewhat NPOV", I think it's a coatrack. You have my opinion on the matter. I suggest you make sure you have consensus to make the changes we just discussed and which you obviously currently don't have consensus for before putting them in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I see that people here are arguing at ANI, but I don't think your dispute should not be that intractable, and I don't think banning people would help. As an outsider, I think it should come as no surprise that a very wealthy Jewish family would have something to do with Zionism and the establishment of Israel, but you need to collect the facts. The arguments here are a house of cards, held up by very limited information about a series of events - you should go back and fill in the details so it all holds together. I would never have imagined that the Balfour Declaration would be a letter sent to one wealthy person; nor would I have thought that the Israeli Parliament and Supreme Court buildings would be private donations from one family. But there's very little elaboration on this either here or in Balfour Declaration or in Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. Was this Rothschild their leader, or some sort of liason? Was he the only Rothschild who was in this organization? Did he provide major funding for their activities? Likewise with the Holocaust mention - what were the motives? What was the situation? And how many Rothschilds actually went to Israel, and did they serve in high office? Have they donated other smaller buildings, or operating expenses? Etcetera. Fill in the facts, develop the more specialized articles about the specific incidents, don't just edit-war over section headers and statements like "some Rothschilds" if there's only one Rothschild mentioned as an example. Wnt (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Edmond James de Rothschild

Who died in 1934 - before Israel was created.

"He became a leading proponent of the Zionist movement, financing the first site at Rishon LeZion. In his goal for the establishment of a Jewish homeland, he promoted industrialization and economic development. In 1924, he established the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association (PICA), which acquired more than 125,000 acres (22,36 km²) of land and set up business ventures.

Edmond de Rothschild also played a pivotal role in Israel's wine industry. Under the supervision of his administrators in Palestine, farm colonies and vineyards were established, and two major wineries were opened in Rishon LeZion and Zichron Yaakov."

Vexorg (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Rothschild and early Jewish colonization in Palestine - By Ran Aharonson

Some interesting stuff here

"Zionism" and why it is not appropriately used here

The use of the word "Zionism" to refer to the Rothschilds as whole is misleading for the reason that the concept of Zionism and the meaning of Zionism has changed over the years. Referring to it over generations as if it has not changed over time does not give us any more information, in fact it gives us less.

The origin of the word Zionism is, of course, the word Zion. That word, in itself, is one of the stranger words in the Hebrew language, meaning at one and the same time, both a place and an idea. Even the place identified as Zion has changed with time. Originally identified with a Jebusite (Canaanite) citadel, conquered by David and first mentioned in our sources in that context, the place of Zion shifted substantially with time. It always meant part of Jerusalem, but which precise part changed to include different parts of the city in different periods: at some times, it was used to refer to the whole city.

In addition, it became a concept referring to the entire homeland, especially when viewed from afar. We see this process beginning with the famous lament of the exiles in Babylon at the beginning of the sixth century B.C.E. when they mourn over “Zion” (Psalm 137). As they think of their destroyed homeland, they weep as they “remember Zion” and as their captors demand of them “songs of Zion.” Clearly they are thinking of their entire homeland and not just their capital city – or parts of it!

With time, the dominant usage refers to the homeland viewed from afar. And many poems, prayers and laments are written in praise of, or in memory of Zion. Central among these is the famed poetic cycle – Shirei Zion (Songs of Zion) written by the great twelfth century Spanish Jewish poet Yehudah HaLevi, who wrote what perhaps must be considered the ultimate series of poems of yearning for Zion. “Zion, ha’lo tish'ali…” (Zion, Will you not ask after the welfare of your captives…) is among the best known of poems/songs about the deserted and abandoned homeland.

[11]

"But with the establishment of Israel, a more discriminating criterion than mere support is necessary....That is to say, the meaning of Zionism has changed...." Book:Zionism in Transition

This reference by Bernard Lewis page 275 and pages following, discusses the way the word "Zionism" has morphed into "racism" over the last decades in some circles as was pointed out earlier by another editor. Thus to use the word as a section title gives us less information and possibly false information. This is why some editors here believe the word should be used carefully and appropriately. This is not an appropriate place to use such a word over so many generations. Stellarkid (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• The meaning the word Zionism hasn't changed at all. And Bernard Lewis the Armenian Genocide Denier is hardly someone to look upto as being any kind of credible authority. To claim that the word Zionism has morphed into Racism is absurd. And where did this other editor allegedly point this out? Please show a diff. Vexorg (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Stellar - As to the second point, I apprieciate that some people hold that view re the word "Zionism". But I think the consensus here is that word can be used where appropriate (see NoMMNG's comment above). There really should be some policy regarding this word. It's not on the "Words to Avoid" policy page.

"refer to the Rothschilds as whole" - Agree. Which is why I liked the "positions on Zionism" wording, to indicate that not all of them felt the same way about it. NickCT (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Nick says "There really should be some policy regarding this word[Zionism]." - You've really opened up a can of worms there. :) Vexorg (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe true. But if there were clear policy on this issue, it might perhaps avoid these kinds of debates. NickCT (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• And after reading pages in the Bernard Lewis Book as linked to by Stellarkid I can see that Stellarkid's claims that "way the word "Zionism" has morphed into "racism" over the last decades" is not true. These pages discuss the charge ( UN resolution 3379 I believe ) of Zionism being a form of racism. Anyway any racism committed by the Zionist Movement and whether or not Zionism is a form of racism is completely irrelevant to the discussion here. Vexorg (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you should call movements according to their historical usage, both when they are named (Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland) and described ("Zionist organization"). But when you describe them in a narrator's voice, explain what the term means in ordinary language ("Some Rothschilds were members of groups supporting the foundation of an Jewish state in Israel"). I'll leave it to someone else to figure out what to do with the title.  ;) Wnt (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

If people choose to keep "Zionism", perhaps this (new) template might be useful? Wnt (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

{{Historical usage|[[Zionism]]}}

To me the question is not the use of the word Zionism, but if four people named Rothchild (out of how many?) acting as individuals merits mention in an article about the Rothchild family. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

NoMoMrNiceGuy - See the sentence in the lede saying "Five brothers ...... Francis II in 1816". Why is a fact that effects five brothers notable in the context of the larger family? Let me give you a hypothetical, if one Rothchild were a tennis champion, would it be notable on this article? If two were, would it be notible then? Three?

In other words, how many members need to belong to some group/class before it is notable in relation to the family's article? NickCT (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that anyone would get a barony would be notable, five more so. Tennis championship and a barony are notable achievements. Depending on the size of the family, if a large percentage were part of the circus, they could be notable as a circus family, as the Rothchilds are notable as a banking family. A view about or for/against the state of Israel by some members of a large huge family of Jews, whether rich or poor, is hardly notable. It may well be notable in the context of a particular Rothschild, if it shaped a part of their lives in some way. How many Rothchilds are noted on the Rothchilds page anyway? 100 at least- not counting by marriage! Stellarkid (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could find a RS that asserts that "Zionism" was notable with respect to a large percentage of Rothschild family members. I think it would maybe be more relevant to ask how many were practicing Jews, who would naturally feel strongly about Biblical "Zion" . James Mayer Rothschild was born in the late 1700's. You may be assured that his views on Zionism differed greatly from those of Lady Sybil Grant (1879–1955) or say Philippe de Rothschild (1902–1988)Stellarkid (talk) 04:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Stellar - I appreciate your point, and would agree with your assertion that "A view about or for/against the state of Israel by some members of a large huge family of Jews, whether rich or poor, is hardly notable". Sure, any large family will have members who will have members who have views for/against the state of Israel. But the fact is, not only have some members "had views" but many have actively supported/financed the creation of the state of Israel. Doesn't that make it notable? NickCT (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

Since this article was mentioned at AN/I, I swung by and took a look. I think the real issue is that the section in question covers two separate, but intrinsically related subjects - Zionism and Israel. The first two paragraph are mostly about Zionism, the movement from the turn of the century to 1948 that advocated for the creation of a Jewish state. The information in those paragraphs is about the actions of the family in support of (or in opposition to) the creation of a Jewish state, prior to Israel declaring itself a country in 1948. The third paragraph is about the family's relationship with Israel after 1948. My suggestion would be to break this into two sections: Views on Zionism and Contributions to Israel. The first section would discuss the varying views held by different members of the family on the Zionist movement (both for and against, very similar to the Independent article, and the existing first two paragraphs). The second section would discuss donations and other contributions made to Israel after 1948 (similar to the existing third paragraph). Anyways, I'm not watching this article, so feel free to heed or ignore my suggestion at will. ← George ^talk 02:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes that makes sense George, a split between the Zionism links and the Israel links would be good. I've since your comments above I've been pro-active in contributing to the encyclopaedia in a positive sense rather than bothering with the negative drama at AN/I and have found some valuable info regarding the Rothschild Family's links to both Zionism and it's creation, the state of Israel. So on a positive note, instead of the bickering we could expand this article with some positive and valuable info. The more you delve the more there's some strong links between the Rothschilds and Zionism, but it's also important to note the sections of the family that were opposed to it. Vexorg (talk) 04:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Although on further thought I don't see a problem with the section being called "Connections to Zionism and Israel" - The section content can easily describe the various connections and the opposition from some sections of the family. Vexorg (talk) 04:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the result of this discussion, I don't think the word "Connections" should be used because it implies that the family as a whole was "connected". "Relationship" might be a better word. Gatoclass (talk) 06:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain why any word implies that the whole of the family was involved, especially when the content of the section specifically states that not all members were involved? Vexorg (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I just think "connections" is a little strong in this context, given that at least some of the Rothschild family were actually opposed to Zionism. Gatoclass (talk) 07:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought the earlier suggestion - Jewish Identity, links to Israel and position on Zionism, covered this critisism. Saying "position on Zionism" simply says that family members had a notable position on Zionism, whether for or against. NickCT (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

but there are links to Zionism as well as links to Israel. The suggestion above Jewish Identity, links to Israel and position on Zionism makes a distinction which isn't accurate IMHO. How about Links to Zionism and Israel. The section swiftly says that not all Rothschilds supported the Zionist State so I can't see where anyone would be misled. Vexorg (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Vex - I think the main complaint is that not ALL Rothchilds support(ed) Zionism or are/were Zionists. A good compramise is going to account for this. I suggest either Links to Israel and Positions on Zionism or Jewish Identity and Positions on Zionism NickCT (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes I see that as the main complaint and frankly it's a very weak complaint. The section clearly states that not ALL members of the family supported the Zionist Movement and the creation of it's state, so any claims that suggested titles are misleading fall flat on their face. What on earth is wrong with "Connections to Zionism and Israel" ???? - It's a fact that there are connections to Zionism and Israel. Can't we just put that in and move on???? Vexorg (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Vex - A number of editors have expressed the same complaint. If you are interested in achieving consensus, you've got to demonstrate willingness to compromise. Come up with a subsection title that makes it absolutely clear that not all of the Rothshilds are Zionists, and I will support it. NickCT (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply by vexorg

1] I have demonstrated willingness to compromise at the very start of this dispute when only Off2riobob and myself were really involved. There was the beginnings of an edit war between 'Zionism' and 'Israel'. I quickly compromised and inserted "Zionism and Israel" - but this wasn't good enough apparently and instead of an amicable compromise this is descended into a ridiculously drawn out war on such a minutae. If you are looking for people who are not willing to compromise then I suggest you look at the 'opposing side' who have dug their heels in deeply. Ask them to compromise. I'm happy to compromise.

2]Now as to the suggestion that a title must make it absolutely clear that not all of the Rothshilds are Zionists for you to support it I would ask why this is necessary? Look at other section titles in this article; 'The Napoleonic Wars' and 'International High Finance' - Not all Rothschilds were involved in those wars or were are involved in high finance. I do not see anyone complaining that those titles are misleading because it is not clear that not all Rothschilds were involved. Because of these double standards regarding section titles no one should complain when I state my view is that the priority for some is not allowing the word Zionism in the article at all costs. Even to the point of devaluing the article by removing the section altogether. Which frankly I find sad. Vexorg (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Per my latest comment below I do not even think that a subsection is warranted. There is little evidence that the support for the Zionist movement or Israel is notable in the context of the family. Obviously it is notable when it comes to some individual family members. Important individual family members are discussed in this article, in the section about the family branches. If the support for Zionism/Israel was an important part of a family members life, mention it there, in these section, together with all other important biographical information. For example, the support for the Zionist movement was an important part of the biography of Edmond James de Rothschild. Edmond is discussed shortly in the section on the French family branch, and that is where all the information pertaining Edmond should be. Advantage - we dont have a section that leaves the impression that the support or non-support for Zionism/Israel was such an important part of the Rothschild family (evidently not given the size and age of the family). Even more important, this way we have some biographical context instead of having a random collection of facts about different family members. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Per my comments below There's no rationale at all for claiming WP:UNDUE on the basis of a couple of 'selected' works on the Rothschilds when otehr works are totally doveted to the Rothschilds connection to Zionism and later Israel, for example, "Rothschild and early Jewish colonization in Palestine By Ran Aharonson" - The current content certainly shows the notability the support of Zionism in very real terms of Patronage/Funding and Israel itself is full of commemorations to this fact in terms of streets being dedicated to members and even whole towns named after them. So I totally disagree with your arguments above Vexorg (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: recent additions about James Mayer Rothschild. Can sources be added ? Information added to this article has to comply with WP:V in a standalone way i.e. compliance isn't inherited across wiki articles by links so if there are sources in other articles to support this info they need to be added here. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I just had a look at the article and any recent references to James Mayer Rothschild are properly sourced. Can you be more specific? Vexorg (talk) 06:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Baron Edmond James de Rothschild, James Jacob de Rothschild's's youngest son was a patron of the first settlement in Palestine at Rishon-LeZion, and bought from Ottoman landlords parts of the land which now makes up present-day Israel. In 1924, he established the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association (PICA), which acquired more than 125,000 acres (22,36 km²) of land and set up business ventures. In Tel Aviv, he has a road, Rothschild Boulevard, named after him as well as various localities throughout Israel which he assisted in founding including Parc Edmond de Rothschild (Edmond de Rothschild Park) in Boulogne-Billancourt Sean.hoyland - talk 10:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)...my heading was wrong. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The sources that are missing are those that connect the family (as the section title implies) rather than individuals to Israel/Zionism/whatever. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

How many members of the family must be connected before we can say the family as a whole is connected? NickCT (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

True but a) that won't verify that there really is a Rothschild Boulevard in Tel Aviv named after him and b) I'm not convinced there there is such thing as the family being used consistently in the article. For example the lead says "is a European dynasty of German Jewish origin that established European banking and finance houses from the late 1700s." The majority of the people in the family were probably busy doing other more mundane and less earth shattering things at the time so in practice the familiy becomes the ones that didn't spend their time in the pub etc. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That's right and that's why the vast majority of the article is devoted to things other that Israel/Zionism. There's no valid reason why everything in the article has to apply to ALL members. Vexorg (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

As the article is about the family and not individual members or individual family branches there is no need to have a random collection of facts about individual members in the article. If we can find sources that discuss how the support for the Zionist movement had an impact on the family itself, it should be included. Besides, there are some WP:UNDUE problems here given that authoritative sources on the family itself spend only a miniscule amount of time on the support of individual family members for the Zionist movement. See for example, "The Rothschilds: Portrait of a Dynasty" by Frederic Morton or "The House of Rothschild: . The world's banker, 1849-1999" by Niall Ferguson, easily accessible via Google books or via Amazon previews.

The section is btw quite redundant as the section on the French branch of the family shortly mentions Edmond James de Rothschild support for the Zionist movement. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no rationale at all for claiming WP:UNDUE on the basis of a couple of 'selected' works on the Rothschild when other works are totally devoted to the Rothschilds connection to Zionism and later Israel, for example, "Rothschild and early Jewish colonization in Palestine By Ran Aharonson" - The current content certainly shows the notability the support of Zionism in very real terms of Patronage/Funding and Israel itself is full of commemorations to this fact in terms of streets being dedicated to members and even whole towns named after them. So I totally disagree with your arguments above Vexorg (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The two authoritative treatments of the Rothschild family are hardly a couple of selected works. You also forgot to mention that "Rothschild and early Jewish colonization in Palestine By Ran Aharonson" is a book about Edmond de Rothschild, and not about the Rothschild family. The current content is mainly one thing - a collection of banal random facts about individual members without any context. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

'banal' this is your POV. My POV is that these facts are very interesting and show the notability of the Rothschild family to Zionism/Israel. As NickCT ( I believe ) has already mentioned the support of Zionism and it's state isn't just from the 'armchair', it was a very real funding and patronage and is very very notable. Israel is steeped in commemorations to the proactive patronage and funding the Rothshilds have given to and been involved in. Furthermore the two alleged authoritative treatments of the Rothschild family you mention are couple of selected works. These sources do not dictate the article, the article is dictated by the notability which is something that has been shown. As an analogy I'm sure most would agree that a family whose members funded the Whitehouse,US Capitol and the US Supreme Court building would certainly require a section on the notability of America to this family. Vexorg (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The connection between the Rothchild family and Israel/Zionism/whatever should be made by a WP:RS, not by editors. That's called WP:OR. So far I have yet to see the RS that makes this connection. Only a couple of editors explaining why they think it's interesting. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree and the connection has been made my WP:RS - if you WP:READTHEARTICLE you'll see that. And I haven't explained why I think it's interesting (anymore than another editor has explained why s/he thinks it's banal), I've shown the notability and the sources show the notability. I do respect that you personally have not yet been able to see this though. Others have. Vexorg (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, myself and several others disagree with you. In fact, I think more editors objected to the section than have agreed to its inclusion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, I have noticed. I have also noticed the reasons put forward and many of them can easily be taken as just a reason to avoid using the word Zionism. After all the same complaints don't exist for the other section titles. i.e 'The Napoleonic Wars' and 'International High Finance' - Not all Rothschilds were involved in those wars or were are involved in high finance. I do not see anyone complaining that those titles are misleading because it is not clear that not all Rothschilds were involved. Editors can make argumetns based upon political agendas. That happens a lot on Wikipedia and is the case of much frustration. of a 100 editors say teh world is cubic, while 1 editor says it's spherical. and btw I just counted and there's more editors for the inclusion.(ec) and another one below. The big issue is the sue of that word 'Zionism'. 21:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, based on the sources presented I do think that it warrants a mention. It seems clear that it was something which was important within the family , and the material effect on Israel also establishes notability in and of itself. Unomi (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to have a look at the source that makes it clear that it was something which was important within the family. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Rothschild_family#Connections_to_Israel. Unomi (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Unomi it feels like we are coming against WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Vexorg (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a RS. Do you have a RS showing that it's clear that it was something which was important within the family? Please quote. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Rothschild_family#Connections_to_Israel - the sources are all there and all reliable. Vexorg (talk) 00:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

<- The reasons for this dispute still aren't really clear to me. The 'Rothschild family' is just a convenient abstraction. In reality there are only individuals. Donations to art museums, donations to Israel, investments in industries etc, what's the difference ? What's at the heart of this dispute ? Is it the notion that editors advocating adding this material are raging anti-semites on a mission to deviously spread racist hate material and there is a moral duty to resist by any means necessary ? Or is it something a bit more rational like a disgreement about when material about a specific instance can be added to an article about a set of instances like for example when a statement about a particular painter is relevant to the article about the artistic movement he belonged to or a statement about particular species of Bee-eater is relevant to the article about the entire Meropidae family ? For example, Ran Aaronsohn's book 'Rothschild and Early Jewish Colonization in Palestine (Geographical Perspectives on the Human Past)' is an entire book by an Israeli academic about an aspect of this topic. Is it pertinent to this article or not ? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, look at this Getty family for a different approach or Rockefeller family. Perhaps there are some clues in Category:Business families. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

See also my suggestion above to incorporate all relevant information in the section that discuss individual family branches, instead of having a dedicated subsection. In fact the notable information was and is already there, and there is no need to introduce a random collection of facts without any context in a separate subsection. That would be warranted if it would be of an all-encompassing imortance for the whole family, but as has been show that is not the case. It were only a few individiual family members that were active in this area. So discuss any connections to Israel if the individuals that are notable for it are discussed in their respective subsection. Regarding the book "Rothschild and Early Jewish Colonization in Palestine", it is about Edmond Rothschild and as such not pertinent to the topic. It is instructive to look at those books that are devoted to the subject of the family itself. All of them devote little space to the topic of Israel/Zionism, and that is what this article should also do according to WP:UNDUE. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 07:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I am out of here. I leave the field to the usual POV pushers. No need to repeat myself if no one is actually reading and discussing my points. And I think the point that all notable information should be incorporated in the section discussing the individual family branches (and actually some of the information is already there) is a good point worth a discussion. Same is true for my point to look at and get guidance from authoriative and comprehensive sources instead of just selectively finding sources about a narrow aspect of the Rothschild family. So much for collaboration on Wikipedia. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 08:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, for the record I've found your contributions to the discussion calm, reasonable and helpful. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The primary question here seems to be, if several/many members of a group (i.e. the Rothchild family) had WP:NOTABLE positions on (and/or participation in) some movement (i.e. Zionism), is it WP:UNDUE to include a subsection on that group's article discussing it. Unfortunately this question is going to woefully subject to POV as I think is evidenced by all the debate above. In my mind there is going to be some threshold where enough members of the family are notable in relation to Zionism that it is not WP:UNDUE to include it. While my background in this subject isn't extensive, I'm guessing that threshold has been cross, and hence I will leave saying that I weakly support a subjection title reading somthing like Jewish Identity and Positions on Zionism ("positions" to highlight the family as a whole was not supporting one POV).

Regarding Demons - I second Sean's "I've found your contributions to the discussion calm, reasonable and helpful". Furthermore, I'd like to note that I was reading your arguments Demon, just not finding overwhelming logic in them. NickCT (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

While I do not think it's necessary for the section title to specifically state that not all Rothschilds were involved with the Zionist Movement, especially as other sections in the article regarding the Napoleonic wars and International High Finance do not involve all of the Rothschild family and there have been no complaints about the lack of specificity of those sections. However in view of the fact that some editors feel that an early and obvious disclaimer in the section itself to the effect that not all the Rothschilds were involved with Zionism is not enough then I, again, am more than willing to compromise on this and put my support in for the suggestion of NickCT in calling the section Jewish Identity and Positions on Zionism - Will note for the record that this title is a compromise as the Rothschild's involvement with Zionism is more than just having a position, they were very every very active. but we need to move on so I compromise. Vexorg (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Support The suggestion by NickCT for Jewish Identity and Positions on Zionism. The sources discussed above clearly indicate that support of Israel was a key concern of several members of the family. And once a few members of the family are involved in a notable activity, it becomes suitable for this article. --Noleander (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"Jewish Identity" is a very vague phrase that makes no sense to me. I don't think it would be appropriate for the header. Gatoclass (talk) 06:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

@Gato - Could you suggest an alternative "Jewish heritage" perhaps? I think it's fine as is, but if you think there's something better, please suggest.

Good work changing this Vexorg. I think we managed to reach a grudging consensus here without too much bickering! NickCT (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You didn't reach consensus as much as wore down the people who disagree with you. This is just not important enough an issue to fight over. Score another notch in the belt in the fight against the Zionist Lobby. [12] [13]

I did like how you put "Jewish Identity" in there, as if there's anything in that section about Jewish identity. A nice compromise you found with yourself just to blur the issue a bit. Well done. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sarcastic comments like that don't help the encyclopedia. If you have a better section title, then please suggest it. I concur the title is not perfect, and perhaps a better title is available. But sniping like that is not helpful. --Noleander (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. How's your mission coming along? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)