Talk:David Mayer de Rothschild

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Non-encyclopaedic style[edit]

I have added tags "non-encyclopaedic", "copy-paste" and "cleanup-spam" because the section "Adventure Ecology" looks like it was clearly copied-and-pasted from some sort of promotional website of that organisation. For example, though some links have been added to names of countries, the sentence:

"To undertake the Plastiki expedition Adventure Ecology was not only influenced by the principles of 'cradle-to-cradle’ design and biomimicry but brought together a multi faceted team from the fields of sustainable design, boat building, architecture and material science in order to foster a collection of new ideas and cutting edge technologies that allow the Plastiki to be a truly unique one of a kind expedition vessel."

...is (a) obviously biased and (b) should link to "sustainable design", "architecture", "materials science", "biomimicry" etc etc. And it would link to them, if it had actually been written by someone writing a Wikipedia article, rather than copy-and-pasting from some promotional Adventure Ecology site.

Liquidcentre (talk) 11:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Removal of information[edit]

I would like to add that I posted the Alex Jones link and it was removed right away, at least as quick as the next day. It is not fair to use censorship on Wikipedia as Primerica is doing. They called me and said to come interview with Citigroup and it turned out to be a brainwash pyramid scheme. The same is happening here. It is a POV that a link to this interview/debate should not be posted on Wiki. Removal of this, I strongly feel, is censorship. -friend

To be quite frank, it was not a notable argument, and it was simply a slip up. We don't have Donald Rumsfeld speech where he says "shot down" one of the flights on 9/11, or any of the many GWB slip ups are not on his article, either. Kevin (talk) 02:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Criticism was not appropriately placed, but it should be moved to its own section in the article instead of being deleted. -Trevc63 22:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why someone removed the information regarding Mr Rothschild's view on global carbon taxation, but I would urge that person to leave the article intact. - This is not speculation - it was Mr Rothschild on the radio live, giving his opinion. - And is relevant to this tiny biography of his.

— Having never heard of this person and having arrived at the article by chance, I would say that the language of that section is hardly neutral. Use of the phrase "admit to" (implying that he was exposed in some way) followed by a statement in which he made an evident mistake are ways to lead the reader to an unfavorable conclusion about this person. By the way, saying that "X says A, and X also says B, but B is false, then A must be false too" is, of course, fallacious reasoning. That section needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view. Tinchoman 05:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Jones Link[edit]

I don't think it's an relevant issue to the biography. Firstly David De Rothschild was being sarcastic when referring to Jupiter and Mars being closer to the sun. Secondly, the carbon tax issue was not controversial. If this wiki says that Mr Rothschild believed in a carbon tax, then you most do the same with every other person on wikipedia who stated the believed in a carbon tax to fight global warming. Many people believe in a carbon tax, however unless the person is a strong advocate for it, someone who would be in the carbon tax wiki itself. There is no need to have it in his wiki for stating he believed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.139.200 (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


To the person below who requests a "real" interview well it depends on what you mean by 'real' I suspect that by real, you mean an interview with a one sided view of the discussed subject which in this case would be global warming and the carbon tax.

To call Mr Jones interview invalid is jocular, he is national talk show host broadcast on many popular radio stations. If someone disagrees with his view on carbon taxing that is fair, but to degrade this interview as invalid simply based on the fact that he does not agree with Mr Rothschild is a POV.

As for population control for one to deem this an 'invalid' and 'ridiculous' theory that individual would need to live in space. Population control is a real study and based in reality and documented facts. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_control Orasis 17:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC) --[reply]

Who deleted the Alex Jones link with David de Rothschild?

That debate is 100% relevant to this page. Stop censoring information. This isn't Nazi Germany.

-- Nazi Germany huh... :P I suggest it be renamed, to describe it as an "interview" would be fallacious. It mostly consisted of Alex Jones ranting about completely unrelated things (such as "genetically engineered chimera" and "population control"), interspersed by brief moments of Rothschild trying (very politely, I might add) to stay on message. It sounds like this was an "ambush" interview, at best, as Rothschild seemed surprised at Jones' personal ire for him. It's interesting you mentioned Nazi Germany - in the 'interview', it seemed Alex hated this man so much he could barely tolerate the idea of even letting him speak. I found Rothschild to be eloquent, articulate and very patient. It actually was a very foolish idea of Jones to let him on the show - because Rothschild exposed Jones as the loose screw that he obviously is. So much repressed anger. Suggest someone finds some other, "real" interviews with Rothschild and puts them on this page.

-- yes, Rothschild was "eloquent, articulate and very patient". he's comment "bring me some food" in the end of the discussion proves this very well. whatever, the link is relevant and stays.

-- Wow. You focused on the 1% of the conversation in which he wasn't eloquent to further your point. Sounds a lot like Alex Jones :) I don't believe he was unaware of what he was saying - it just proves he considered the entire conversation absurd and the only way to silence that nutcase was to play into his delusions that this poor man was somehow at the helm of a "neo feudal" empire. If someone accused me of being at the heart of a neo-feudal empire, and didn't listen to any rational arguments? Well, yes, I think I would ask them to "bring me some food" too - it's called humor - a trait that AJ was completely lacking throughout the duration of that debate on the phone, he was so blinded by his hatred. Anyway. Back on topic - I changed the link to say "Debate" and "conversation", rather than "interview". I think to call it an interview deludes the reader into thinking that Rothschild was speaking to an actual journalist, asking questions, rather than browbeating their guest.

  • Please sign posts, folks. I'm sure the Jones link will be scrubbed. That said, if you're looking for humor, I'd say it was hilarious when Rothschild claimed Jupiter was closer to the sun than earth. It was also hilarious when Jones said "Take me lord Rothschild, take me!" in immitation of a woman being impressed at Rothschilds self-styled role of "adventurer". Also, Jones never accused David Mayer de Rothschild personally of being the head of a neo-feudal empire, he did however infer that his family was involved with such. Rothschild repeatedly accused Jones of being an oil baron, which is absurd and ironic considering the Rothschild investments in big oil. Anyway, if we're to believe David de Rothschild's book, then the solution to global warming is to wear sweaters, ride in electric geo metros packed like clown cars, and build straw houses. If anyone can show me a Rothschild (of the actual European banking line) that doesn't live in a castle and instead lives in a straw house, I will actually waste money on this chap's silly, insulting book. I wonder how many beautiful trees are now dead because David de Rothschild wanted to publish this book. As for Rothschild's demeanor, of course he was somewhat calm, it's part of the training. The best liars are always calm because they have gone to schools where that selling point technique is taught. It's called public relations, and it only works on dullards in my opinion.

hyper_individualist@yahoo.com --76.83.249.234 11:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additionally, can anyone find actual documentation of Rothschild travelling across Antarctica? So far, I've turned up a paltry two photos. If I were going to travel across Antarctica, I'd have filmed the entire thing and would have had thousands of photos taken. I'm not suggesting he wasn't in Antarctica or that he didn't actually travel across, but was there a documentary or something?

--76.83.249.234 11:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"hyper_individualist" you've clearly demonstrated your incapacity to contribute to this article in any rational, unbiased way. To suggest that somebody being polite and rational is "part of the training" is hilarious - as if somehow sane, rational dialogue is subhuman or unacceptable. But just to prove you wrong - go f*ck yourself. This notion that if somebody is championing sustainability causes that they somehow must live in a grass hut and not use any resources is a ridiculous and tired tactic of the far right and people with an agenda linked to polluting industries. Rothschild's use of the term "oil guy" in the context of this interview was quite obviously not an accusation (though it should be noted that at no stage did Alex Jones deny that he had oil shares), rather he was baiting Jones for a response - and it worked - Jones' response was that of an insane, ranting teenage boy. And furthermore, if it's alright for Alex Jones to claim that a perfectly calm and quiet guest (who by all indications was a victim of ambush journalism in this instance, having come on to promote his book rather than cop a serve from Jones) is part of a vast global conspiracy to enslave the people and eliminate 2/3'ds of the world's population, I think he's perfectly within his rights to throw around a few unsubstantiated allegations of his own, don't you? If Jones insists on attacking his guests' credibility on completely fallacious and fantastical grounds, I think they're well within their rights to return the favor. Shall we start with Jones' constant carping that the mainstream press are trying to promote a culture of fear among the masses? Every single article on PrisonPlanet or InfoWars warns of all sorts of incredible doomsday scenarios - the only difference is they claim they will be brought about by the "NWO" - all the while promoting all sorts of "doomsday" survival schwag, water purifiers and "Live forever!" or "Miracle Cancer Cure!" stuff on his site. Conflict of interest? Conflict of interest? Alex Jones is a smart guy. However, his cult-like following is an alarming and frightening trend. It's incredible how the very tactics Alex Jones accuses the mainstream media of are not even near off limits in his own diatribes. You mention the mistakes that Rothschild made regarding planetary distances. It's amazing how that entire interview to Jones was boiled down to Rothschild's ONE malaprop, all the while completely ignoring all of the other salient points in his interview (of which there were vastly more). Do you realise how long we would be here if the same logic were applied to Alex Jones' propaganda? - 220.157.71.165

Wow. I can't believe there's no mention of the interview. One reason why I scarcely use Wikipedia anymore for controversial people/subjects. Just goes to show what great lengths people go to for censorship and not telling the whole story. Real slick that the same people against Alex Jones are part of this pro-censorship. Go ahead and call yourself an intellectual. You're just retarded. By the way, sorry to the poor soul that tries to include the interview, just wait for the amen chorus on the side of the guy that removed it for you. You can't win unless you're mainstream in any case. Shimdidly (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being 'A Rothschild'[edit]

I think it may be worth adding a section devoted to David Mayer's acknowledgment of and position on being a Rothschild. Particularly, his acknowledgment of the criticism that comes along with being a Rothschild and an environmentalist. I'm new to Wikipedia editing, but perhaps this article Outside Magazine could be used as a reference / starting point. Particularly this quote:

"Some people will always make the assumption ‘There's a rich guy, a Rothschild; he paid a guide, the world's fucked, and who cares?' " he says. "But I could sit there and do nothing or use my name and do something."

--Trevc63 23:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there should be something about that and i think it would improve the article. IamMcLovin 23:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, cool, I'll write up a draft when I get the chance and perhaps you could look over it. --Trevc63 14:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I'll look forward to reading it! IamMcLovin 22:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Criticism[edit]

You keep deleting this section saying that I need to provide sources!? I provide 5 sources with documented facts.

David Rothschild made a complete fool out of himself telling radio host Alex Jones on July 6th 2007 that the planets of Mars, Jupiter and Saturn are closer to the Sun than planet Earth[1][2]. Al Gore together with Rothschild have also been criticised for using the real environmental problems of Earth to promote a global carbon tax and a one-child policy (and in a larger context: a one world government) as a solution for their orchestrated man-made global warming problem[3][4][5]

Screwed-n-chopped —Preceding comment was added at 01:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop drinking the cool-aid, dude. Kevin (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! Maybe you should try it. Your candidate's "spiritual mentor" is a Jew-hating, faux-"Christian" Black supremacist. --Hereward77 (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He isn't the candidate, is he? Kevin (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People and the friends they keep? Ron Paul is God's test for America, and America will be punished for its wilful ignorance. --Hereward77 (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May I remind you that Wikipedia is not a forum. I feel compelled to add, against my better judgement, that I'm rather baffled that you can derive such a belief. Do you sincerely believe an "omnipotent entity" would conceive of aligning itself with a nation, group or individual? Some of the greatest atrocities and injustices have been enabled by people exclaiming: "trust me, this is what god demands, this is what god wants". No rational human being should countenance such arguments. SoLando (Talk) 20:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was Kevin who initiated this slanging match with his lazy "cool-aid" jibe. But you have made your political inclinations clear to me. You appear to be using this as a forum also. --Hereward77 (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is pointless I think it should be deleted --195.53.125.134 (talk) 11:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC) His career is largely pinned on environmentalism. He had a legitimate interview in which he made a very stupid statement that anybody with half of a brain would scoff at. The fact that this is all omitted without question shows the true colors of the typical wikipedia writer's integrity... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.74.34.52 (talk) 00:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/090707closertosun.htm
  2. ^ http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4891699310483983031&q=alex+jones+david+rothschild&total=23&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
  3. ^ www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/090707_b_fraud.htm
  4. ^ www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/211207_b_gore.htm
  5. ^ www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/130207Warming.htm

Refs[edit]

This thing needs some refs William M. Connolley (talk) 14:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still true William M. Connolley (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice glowing praise...[edit]

But encyclopedic?

"...an organization that harnesses the power of dreams, adventures and stories in order to inspire, educate and engage individuals, communities and industry to become agents of change"

"...a group that included a high profile artist, photographer, filmmaker and scientist. The group spent time in the Ecuadorian rain forest, documenting the damage international oil companies had caused by drilling the vast oil reserves, which disturbs the natural and social order."

Not really surprised, however, that anyone who champions the "environmental" movement is beyond reproach and criticism.

18.248.6.245 (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT William M. Connolley (talk) 10:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plastiki merge[edit]

The Plastiki article is not notable enough to merit a standalone article, but has materiel that could be useful in this article, so I propose a merge. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Plastiki expedition has been covered by major news outlets including CNN, the BBC and National Geographic. The vessel itself and the purpose of the journey is more interesting than Mr. Rothschild. Certainly there are many more people interested in environmentalism, sailing, and sustainable design than in this person. For that reason, I have re-focused the article onto the ship herself. I think the suggestion of merging should be dropped from the Plastiki page. TDuVal (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting is not the same as notability. -- 71.223.127.190 (talk) 07:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability (from your link) comes from "Significant coverage" by "Reliable" "Sources" that are "Independent of the subject". All of those criteria are met with this vessel which has been covered by CNN and the BBC. I know this only "presumes" notability, but, on top of that, the voyage was featured on the English WP front page on April 1, 2010. So, can we remove the merge suggestion now? TDuVal (talk) 06:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, for now. It's hard to say currently what it's impact will be over time; if there are significant lasting effects of the vessel's construction &/or the proposed voyage, then it meets notability requirements, but it's a bit too early to apply that standard. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 208.81.184.4. --Triplespy (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Mjroots notes: Per long-established WP:SHIPS convention, ships are notable enough to sustain individual articles. A separate article for Plastiki makes it possible to add a standardized infobox with data about the vessel. Small boat sailors have an ongoing fascination with attempts to cross oceans with unlikely craft like Abora and Charles J. Moore's JUNK Raft, which was made out of an old Cessna and plastic bottle flotation pontoons. This article may eventually help resolve disputes among sailing folk as to whether this expedition was just a tall tale. Plastiki may not be a major advance in marine architecture, but there are doubtless a few techniques in its construction useful for other improvised watercraft! Djembayz (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon Tax[edit]

http://www.australiamatters.com/david_rothschild.html

Can someone please add a criticism section? I search the internet for David Rothschild and I find this wiki, his personal webpage, followed by thousands of articles about him that all negative. Reading through the talk page it seems there have been many attempts to add criticism to this page and all have been removed without reason. Note that disliking "Alex Jones" does not have anything to do with the rules of wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.165.8 (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

I agree with what 24.108.139.200 said in that this article needs a criticism section, but that the Alex Jones part is unnecessary. When I was researching to improve that section, references to the incident were very few and far between. It clearly was not a large-scale thing. — GorillaWarfare talk 06:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP's do not need or require criticism or controversy sections, and I've removed this one as it is not relevant or based on a RS. Viriditas (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:David Mayer de Rothschild/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Isn't it ironic how Rothschild pleads with people to give up their McMansions in his book while the Rothschild dynasty has owned some of the largest Mansions in history.

I guess it's one rule for the ruling elite, and another for the poor.

Dear All - all joking aside, (and some of the edits quite properly removed have been deplorable), but this biography is very poor indeed. It lacks neutrality and objectivity and in many parts seems written as a PR or marketing document for the individual and his activities. The particular areas are obvious and i'll not bore you with pointing them out. A significant clean-up is suggested. 124.179.99.179 (talk) 00:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 00:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 12:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Mayer_de_Rothschild&oldid=1207268645"