For some reason it is omitted in this entry
https://www.ft.com/content/92d13310-6284-11de-b1c9-00144feabdc0
https://www.reuters.com/article/britain-slavery-idUSL171535320090701OutoeSky (talk) 05:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The solution is simple: just write about it. The article is semi-protected, that is, this page cannot be edited by unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as accounts that are not confirmed or automatically confirmed (accounts that are at least four days old and have made at least ten edits to Wikipedia) . Semi-protection is useful when there is a significant amount of disruption or vandalism from new or unregistered users. By registering, you can edit. PrazerCambraia (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yedaman54 @Tol @Saturnalia04
We're always extremely specific about ancestry, if mentioned at all as being notable, and exclude the ethnicity otherwise, per WP:ETHNICITY. We should either be specific or not say it at all. DarmaniLink (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- (Noting also user talk discussion (permalink)) I believe the Rothschild family is primarily known for their banking activities, not their ethnicity; their ethnicity should be mentioned, but I don't think the lead sentence is appropriate placement. I would support opening with something along the lines of "The Rothschild family is a wealthy banking family originally from Frankfurt..." and moving the mention of their ethnicity to somewhere else in the lead. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, lets do that. I'll leave you to change it how you deem appropriate and tell you if I agree, or touch it up if I don't. DarmaniLink (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- They are well known in antisemitic conspiracy theories https://www.britannica.com/story/where-do-anti-semitic-conspiracy-theories-about-the-rothschild-family-come-from and reliable sources do give them ample coverage for this. New editors trying to change it, are you being paid by anyone, or part of any organizing trying to remove things from Wikipedia that make Israel or Jews look bad? I just saw a video of a group doing that. Dream Focus 03:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Should we keep their ethnicity in the lede sentence, or move it elsewhere to the lede?
- I'm fine with leaving it as is, for the record, I was against its removal in the first place, and just opened this as a forum to curb potential edit warring. DarmaniLink (talk) 03:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be there since that is what they are well known for. Wikipedia does not censor the truth. Dream Focus 03:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Not trying to censor the truth :)
- I'm trying to stop edit warring over this sentence before it becomes a big problem.
- If their ethnicity is part of their notability, then we should leave it there. DarmaniLink (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Rothschild’s are Jewish. Very simple. No debate here Saturnalia04 (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anybody is disputing that; the discussion is on how important and relevant their ethnicity is, and how prominently placed in the article it should thus be. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I do agree that their ethnicity is widely covered in RS, and that it should be included; I just don't think that it's important enough to put in the lead sentence. What would you think about the change I proposed above? (Also, I don't see how changing "Ashkenazi Jewish" to "European" would be pro-Jewish or pro-Israel; am I missing something?) Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- From MOS:ETHNICITY
- The first sentence should usually state:
- Name(s) and title(s), if any (see also WP:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)). Handling of the subject's name is covered below in § First mention.
- Dates of birth and death, if found in secondary sources (do not use primary sources for birth dates of living persons or other private details about them).
- Context (location, nationality, etc.) for the activities that made the person notable.
- One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms.
- The main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.)
- However, try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject; instead, spread relevant information over the lead paragraph.
- So the main question seems to be
- Is it a distinct type of family, warranting specification, and distinct from other families or nobility, where valuable information would be lost if it were not specified?
- Well, [[List of European Jewish nobility|Noble]] is in the type field in the infobox. However, I don't know if Ashkenazi Jewish nobility is duly different enough from other nobility to demand distinction. Would we do the same for other nobility that isn't Ashkenazi Jewish? I think it depend on how notable their ethnicity or nationality is to the family's identity.
- Are they strongly associated with Judaism, or the Ashkenazi Jewish community?
- Well, based on RS coverage, and their own description of themselves, that does seem to be the case. Going strictly off wikipedia's manual of style, it should likely be in the lede sentence. However, per WP:IAR it could be moved to elsewhere in the lead if it stylistically seems worse in the first sentence. DarmaniLink (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with a lot of what you're stating, @DarmaniLink; I'm just relying somewhat heavier on the guideline (from the MoS section you linked) that "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability" (here, this is referring to the opening paragraph and not just the lead sentence, given placement under the section "Opening paragraph"). So, if we're following the biography guidelines (as this article is on a family as a whole, ethnicity may be more relevant), the question at hand should likely be to what extent the Rothschild family's ethnicity is "relevant to [their] notability", and, based on that, where to discuss it. As I've stated, I think characterising them in this manner in the lead sentence is an overemphasis on ethnicity (for example, Britannica does not mention their ethnicity anywhere in its opening paragraph), but should be covered somewhere in the lead paragraphs. I definitely think "banking family" is more important to their notability than "Ashkenazi Jewish family", and so should be given more weight in the lead. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 07:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe we could do what the old shortdesc and type used to say, and say something like "Jewish Noble Banking Family"? Merge all that into one description. Based on some of the other arguments I've seen it does seem that it is centrally notable to them, but, I do also agree that being a banking family is also extremely notable, both factoids being extremely notable. DarmaniLink (talk) 08:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "Jewish noble banking family" sounds good to me (both as the shortdesc and as the primary descriptor in the lead sentence). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 08:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Went ahead and made the change :) DarmaniLink (talk) 08:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No I am not paid by the Israeli government lmao. I was using the same logic as what Tol stated. Also kinda a low blow to assume that we are paid by Israel. Thats a bold accusation to be even questioning people about. Yedaman54 (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If there was a family line of gay frenchmen that had amassed a large fortune over hundreds of years, it would be important to identify their unique status as a wealthy gay french family.
- There are many wealthy family lines, such as the royal British family, and there's no attempt to list the ethnically british (or german if you want to go that far) royals as European.
- The fact is that weather Jewish or British, or even Saudi ethnicity is a factor of the subject matter, it is important to be precise. Family Wealth of this magnitude is cultivated over generations within a narrow ethnicity, therefore ethnicity is a crucial detail to include in the first sentence. The wealth is a function of the family's lineage. ACiD GRiM (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it as it is - The Rothschild family is notable for being a wealthy Jewish family so this description provides the reader with useful information straight away. 2405:DA40:435D:4500:68EB:62AA:E941:276E (talk) 05:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that's saying we should play into anti-semitic stereotypes. OJ Simpson is still known for murder but the introduction paragraph for him at least establishes that he got famous as a football player before discussing the trial. Kylenielsen (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTCENSORED. Even if it did "play into antisemetic stereotypes", it wouldn't matter in the first place.
- Also how is them being jewish remotely comparable to someone being a football player before being on trial for murder? DarmaniLink (talk) 07:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kylenielsen Excuse me, but what exactly is malicious about describing them as they have been previously described?
- Don't change information actively under discussion, especially dont edit war it back in WP:BRD. And don't accuse people of malicious intent WP:AGF. DarmaniLink (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't change information, I simply removed a part in the introduction that was further expanded upon later in the article. I noticed that it was causing a fuss on [1]social media in addition to the pointlessness and just took initiative Kylenielsen (talk) 07:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, you absolutely did change information, by changing the meaning of a sentence. Not changing information is a spelling fix or adding punctuation, or clarifying something. Also seeing it on social media doesn't explain or justify why you would accuse someone of malicious intent in the edit summary.
- If you weren't changing information, why would you claim that the change was to remove something you believed to be maliciously added or that undoing your change would play into antisemitic stereotypes? DarmaniLink (talk) 07:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Should the shortdesc and the type be reverted back to Jewish Noble Banking Family, or should the change to Noble Banking family be kept? DarmaniLink (talk) 06:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was the original Jewish surname ‘Mayer’ before it was changed to the more German-sounding ‘Rothschild’? I’ve heard that claim before and it would make sense given all the family members who have ‘Mayer’ as part of their name. Overlordnat1 (talk) 07:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why there is no head of the family in the infobox? --95.24.68.30 (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The template used, {{Infobox family}}, has as options 'current head' and 'final head'. The Rothschilds exist to this day, with several branches; there is no single head of the family. Hope this helps. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK
Soo in the "Prominent descendants of Mayer Amschel Rothschild" section...
2603:6011:9600:52C0:14ED:5E37:E028:EBB9 (talk) 04:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- For future note, WP:GOFORIT :) DarmaniLink (talk) 07:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The date this company was founded was 1827. And it had as its main and exclusive object the assurance of [any kind of] ships (fact used today against the Rothschild family with regard to slavery, for among those ships were slave-ships). The source of this information, although official, is in Portuguese language though (here). 2804:214:829F:23B7:EA1C:2BDD:E2FA:69AF (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
