Talk:Rothschild properties in the home counties

Opening heading

Surely within a category "Rothschilds", there is place for a section "English Rothschilds" (as well as "French Rothschilds", "Vienna Rothschilds", "Frankfurt Rothschilds", "American Rothschilds" and "Rothschilds (bank)") discussing the Buckinghamshire connection, with links directly to the houses named.

"Rothschild Houses in Buckinghamshire is an intermediate category that isn't useful. User:Wetman

I only write what I know about, which is the local history of the Buckinghamshire area. If you think it an unhelpful article, feel free to change it. User:Francs2000

---

Wasn't Stowe Park in Buckingham also one of his? Might also be worth mentioning that the Tring property is now a natural history museum, featuring a large collection of animals (sadly stuffed) collected by one of the Rothschilds. GRAHAMUK 10:17, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

No, Stowe Park was not a Rothschild house. The Tring Museum is not housed in Rothschild's house Tring Park, it is housed in the town centre. Tring Park is still privately owned by the Rothschild family. Unfortunately I don't feel I know enough about the latter house in order to create an article about it. User:Francs2000

Afd

Why is this? Shouldn't the purchases and holdings be in the article on the family? A list of land owned by the family is #1 nothing anyone would search for, #2 not in itself significant. It doesn't change anything. The land doesn't get better, worse, more interesting, or less interesting for having been owned by Joe Smith or Baron von Rothschild. Unless the article were to state that the Rothschilds had some plan or some purpose or some project for their land, then this is just trivia at best. Utgard Loki (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, fingerpainting: this wouldn't even be a useful Category. First step: make sure each enyclopedia-worthy property is given its own article. I'd just cut-and-paste, losing the bit of edit history here. But there might be objections to that. --Wetman (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I have only just seen this. No it should not be deleted. It is hugely important. This is how one family in a very short period practically bought the best part of one English county, altered its entire social structure which caused a legacy to be left which is still tangible today. As a piece of social history it is without parallel. The page could do with expansion and more of a rationale for its raison d'etre though. Giano (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Article title

I have just reverted some edits from an IP who added to the list properties which are outside Buckinghamshire. Having deleted these I notice that the article section includes references to several other properties outside Buckinghamshire. The current title of the article creates a synthetic classification of the Rothschild properties. It is the case that the Rothchilds are closely associated with the county and greatly influenced life there for a long period. This was a consequence of seeking to purchase and also build their properties and estates is due to its convenience and closeness to west London e.g Gunnersbury Park where the family had settled in the 18 century and the purchase of Tring park in Hertfordshire was acquired for the same reason. I would like to suggest a renaming of the article to Rothschild properties in England. Then it would be possible to incliude all properties perhaps under the headings of the appropriate county. Thoughts please on this suggestion over the next couple of weeks thanks.Tmol42 (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

There being no objections I am going ahead to rename the article to Rothschild properties in England. Tmol42 (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• There is every objection! Revert it back at once, if Rothschilds in Buckinghamshire is not technically correct call it Rothschild properties in the Vale of Aylesbury. The whoe point is that in one very short space of time (20 years) one family revolutionarised agriculturally, socially and more importantly took over politically one very small area of England! The idealise Victorian-Tudor architecture, they introduced in the villages has become almost vernacular in the area today. It is still prevalent and recreated in pastciches in the local villages. In England, this is unique. It's imperative the page refers to the locality. If someone has added Gunnerbury and Exbury, then they should be reoved not the page re-named. Giacomo  21:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

If only it was ever an article as you describe. The article only made reference to influence to the Buckinghamshire landscape in the lead but after that fails to make any reference to the impact on agriculture, socio-econimic impact on villages, or politics (this is covered in other articles about the family), nor does it refer to any of the many small properties they built in Buckinghamshire. Not only does it mention Exbury and Gunnersbury but several other properties in other counties. Nor has the article been recently subverted by the addition of references to properties outside Buckinghamshire. All these properties currently referred to that are outside Buckinghamshire have been included in the article since December 2003 shortly after the article was created and since which there has been negligible changes to the article. Clearly the editorial concensus was that the article content was valid and the reason for the move I originally proposed was based on the guidance contained in Help:Moving a page#Reasons for moving a page, bullet point 4. Tmol42 (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Article Title again

The title of this article has just been changed from 'Rothschild properties in England' to 'Rothschild properties in and around Buckinghamshire'. The new title is both misleading and incorrect. The county of Hampshire which is referenced as a location of a Rothschild property cannot be described as being around Buckinghamshire, nor can the now defunct county of Middlesex, which has been subsumed into Greater London be described in this way. In this respect it also falls foul of Wikipedia:Article names which calls for article titles to be unambiguous and of utility to the user. My proposal is to revert the title of the article to 'Rothschild properties in England' which at least is accurate and allows for an inclusive approach whereby other properties elsewhere in England can be added to the article, although I am also open to other suggestions if they have merit. Lets discuss! Meanwhile I will leave this proposal on the table for seven days before taking any action Tmol42 (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Change it back. WCCasey (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree. The new title is meaningless. - Scribble Monkey (talk) 10:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved to "Rothschild properties in the Home counties" on 28 February by User:GiacomoReturned. There were no subsequent complaints. DrKiernan (talk) 08:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Rothschild properties in and around Buckinghamshire → Rothschild properties in England — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC) The title of this article was changed from the proposed title to Rothschild properties in and around Buckinghamshire. This changed title is misleading and lacks precision as discribed under Wikipedia:Article names#Deciding on an article title. The proposed reversion is supported by the concensus expressed below on this Talk Page for the article title to be reverted to its previous name which reflects the content accurately--Tmol42 (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• If you want a broader article title, write a broader article. This should, I agree, omit Exbury, almost on the Channel, but beyond that it is a compact group. To change the title as proposed while omitting the City of London (the Rothschilds lived in Piccadilly) would be more misleading. Vale of Aylesbury? Home Counties? Omit both outliers and say Buckinghamshire? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC

The article did have an outline reference to other non-Bucks proporties but apparently these were subsequently deleted by a flyby editor a short while back I had been doing some research on the London, Manchester and other properties connected to the Rothschilds to when the current name change had occurred. Tmol42 (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent edits

Most of the history section, perfectly fine but unrefed (although it can be reffed to the refs used in the remaining parts of the page) has been removed. It can be found in the history & should replaced when someone has refs. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Ifs its unrefed and in any way contentious or challengeable it has to be removed immediately as this page must comply with WP:BLP, so no not perfectly fine... Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Clearly nonsense - only a single short sentence ("Eythrope is the country home of the current Lord Rothschild") related to a BLP, & none of it was remotely contentious. Funny how Rothschild articles attract so many unusual edits.... Johnbod (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually information about any property currently occupied by a member of the family goes under WP:BLP which appears to cover a half dozen of the listed residences. You appear to misunderstand what is meant by contentious, for instance claims of ownership and the like are *always* contentious. As for unlikely to be challenged you can't really argue that one because I just challenged it. Before casting inappropriate aspersions peruse my created pages and history and see if you can find anything supportive of conspiracy theories or anti-semitic. Deleting material that has stood in violation of BLP policy for a literal decade is in no way unusual. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)