Talk:Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery/Archive 1

Archive 1

Prominent English Rothschild family members

What is the section "Prominent English Rothschild family members" doing in this biography? If their relation is important to Hannah Primrose, then it should be explicit in text, if not this belongs, if at all, in the Rothschild family article. I have deleted it from here. Bejnar 17:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. I am currently working on an expansion of "Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery" here [1] and I'm not sure that section is necessary there either, is there not a Category:Rothschild or something similar to make the family links? Giano 18:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Instead of having an incredibly long bibliography section at the bottom, can it be shortened? Maybe by combining the pages from that book? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.6.115.84 (talk) 08:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Where possible this has been done. It is customary on Wikipedia to cite all sources and reference any facts not likely to be commom knowledge. There is not very much about this subject that is common knowledge hence a long list of references in necessary to give Wikipedia creditability. Giano 08:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Healthy, pleasant cottages

We read:

Her over-protective parents ensured that she never entered a cottage where there was sickness or unpleasantness of any kind.

Logically, this says nothing about her ability to enter cottages where there was no sickness or unpleasantness, but it would be normally read to imply that she was able to do so.

A footnote adds:

McKinstry, p. 70, quotes Hannah's cousin Constance de Rothschild (the wife of Lord Battersea) as saying "She was never allowed to enter a cottage, to go where sickness and sorrow dwelt."

I take that to mean that she was never allowed to enter any cottage or to go where sickness or sorrow dwelt. I'd therefore change what's in the main text to something along the lines of: Her over-protective parents ensured that she never entered a cottage or went anywhere with sickness or unpleasantness of any kind. (That's rather leaden; I'd hope to think of something better when less sleepy.)

But perhaps I've misunderstood. -- Hoary 14:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Try this [2] Giano 15:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Do the sexy girl and the handsome man meet each other at street? No they just met at a celebrity and millionaire dating site called wealthymingle..com .handsome men and sexy girls are there. It is all by yourself. So good to see sexy girls there .You can also find your handsome guy.

Ah yes, good. -- Hoary 23:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

changed her year of death

Her year of death is 1888, not 1890. 75.15.182.167 19:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You may be right and you may be wrong, but the author of the article has consulted many sources. Please give a reference for your change. Meanwhile, I'm reverting it without prejudice. Bishonen | talk 20:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC).

All sources agree she died in 1890! Giano 20:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Some lunatic seems to like vandalising this article Johnor 21:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Do the sexy girl and the handsome man meet each other at street? No they just met at a celebrity and millionaire dating site called wealthymingle..com .handsome men and sexy girls are there. It is all by yourself. So good to see sexy girls there .You can also find your handsome guy.

I've requested full page protection. --Ronz 22:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You're not going to get it. It's on the front page, that's why it's being vandalized the way it is. The front page article isn't supposed to be protected. Many people are watching it and reverting. Bishonen | talk 22:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC).

I didn't realize it was featured. What is this edit [3] for?

Protection yesterday. Not while on front page. Bishonen | talk 22:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC).

It's protected from being moved. Makes sense. --Ronz 22:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Anti-semitism

Is there any evidence that British mid and late-Victorian society was anti-semitic?--Major Bonkers (talk) 08:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Try reading beyond the lead, you will find it fully referenced, and if that fails to convince you, what is a known fact try reading The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (all of it) Giano 12:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Giano, I do hope that we can have a pleasant conversation and not descend into abusive brevity. I have no desire or wish to read The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which is anyway a Russian volume and was, so Wikipedia informs me, first published in 1903 (ie. 13 years after your subject's death). QED, what relevance does it have to British (upper class) Victorian society? It seems to me that there's plenty of evidence that British society of the period was not anti-semitic: see Nathan Rothschild, who bankrolled the Napoleonic Wars and was your subject's grandfather, Daniel Deronda in fiction, and (of course) Benjamin Disraeli. The only obvious potentially anti-semitic references of the period, of which I am aware, are those of Fagin (where his Judaism is actually a characterisation rather than a caricature) and certain minor references in Surtees (who died when your subject was 13 years old).

On the other hand, this is what the article states: [...] an anti-Semitic society [...] [para.3], in the 'opener' and un-referenced; and, in the main section:

“ However, several hurdles had to be overcome before a marriage could take place. While the Jewish Rothschilds were accepted into society, and indeed were close friends of some members of the royal family including the Prince of Wales, as elsewhere in Europe, strong anti-Semitic feeling was prevalent in the upper echelons of society. Queen Victoria herself expressed a reluctance to make a Jew a peer.[18] Lord Spencer advised the Prince and Princess of Wales against attending a Rothschild ball with the words "The Prince ought only to visit those of undoubted position in Society."[19] However, this did not prevent the Prince from accepting Rothschild's invitations and gifts privately. While one could be friends with Jews and accept their hospitality, their social status was still not sufficiently elevated to include marriage. ”

• There is no citation for the statement: [...] strong anti-Semitic feeling was prevalent in the upper echelons of society. In fact, if you read that sentence fully, it perhaps contradicts itself: While the Jewish Rothschilds were accepted into society [...] strong anti-Semitic feeling was prevalent in the upper echelons of society. Are the Rothschilds, then, the exception that proves the rule? (And, if so, on what basis is this claim made?)

• It seems to me that you've got the wrong end of the stick regarding this quotation: "The Prince ought only to visit those of undoubted position in Society." The phrase 'undoubted position' suggests to me not that Spencer opposed attendance at a ball not on the basis of the Judaism of the hosts but because they were (in his opinion) nouveau riche. (In any case was his advice acted upon? If not, is the reference relevant?)

• And that quotation supports the proposition that the Prince of Wales, by accepting hospitality or presents, was in a position to determine society's attitude to the Rothschilds. I'm not at all sure how a couple in the public eye, like the Prince and Princess of Wales, would be in a position to accept hospitality or presents privately in such a way that they could hypocritically deny social acceptance publicly. This seems to be what you allege they did.--Major Bonkers (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove here. Anti-semetism amongst the ruling and upperclasses in Britain, and indeed all the courts of Europe in the 19th century is an accepted fact. Young page 18: "Most people at the time were casually anti-Semetic, despite the Prince of Wales hob-nobbing with Jewish financiers". Disraeli had huge problems with anti-semetism. I'll reff the Young fact if it makes you happy. Giano 14:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Major Bonkers, googling for "benjamin disraeli anti-semitism" gave me something like 20,000 hits. I found plenty of scholarly articles on the subject on jstor, which is only accessible through university proxies, so that's a bit frustrating... but here, a bit at random, is a page from the Bodley: "Born into the Jewish faith and later baptised, he [Disraeli] had to contend with the marked antisemitism of the times."[4] You will easily find more yourself. And I don't understand why you bring in Daniel Deronda in support of your argument, when its focus on Victorian anti-semitism rather contradicts it (even though George Elliot herself writes from an enlightened viewpoint). Bishonen | talk 14:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC).

Furhter to our converstion I have added a few more reffs to anti-Semitism being common place at the time. All the Reference books used for this article mention the anti-Semitism of the time. I'm not adding more as I find them distasteful and I don't want this subject to be reffed out of all proportion. The internet if full of foul sites documenting 19th and 20th century anti-Semitism - I'm not going to link to them, I'm sure you are quite capable of finding them for yourself. Giano 14:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[Edit conflict]:I'm not trying to prove anything. I am seeking some evidence that British Victorian society was anti-semitic, as the article maintains. If it's an accepted fact there must be some evidence for it. You can cite the Young quotation if you like, but I don't see it as anything more than his opinion.

• As Gibbon points out (ch. 16), making an obvious point, Christianity is a sect of Judaism. In referring to British Victorian upper class society, you are referencing people who were well educated and were brought up with a thorough knowledge of the Old Testament, ie. a shared heritage. With the Empire, British subjects were not just Protestant, but also Catholic (particularly in Ireland), Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, and Buddhist. Don't forget the Indian princes (eg. Duleep Singh) and Indian inter-marriage (eg. James Skinner and, I think Warren Hastings - incidentally, there's a good article for your future attention). Some of Victoria's subjects were black (in fact, black sailors fought at Trafalgar). The Empire was cosmopolitan. So: were the British equally anti these other peoples as they were of the Jews? (Rhetorical question.)

• Having had a brief look at Wikipedia, the only reference that I can find to British Victorian anti-semitism is the Limerick Pogrom, which was a pretty feeble affair and nothing on the scale of (in particular) contemporaneous Russian pogroms. I suspect that British anti-semitism, such as it is, was limited to dismissive epithets, ie. an association with the foreign and nouveau riche, rather than anything serious - and certainly not violence. If this is correct, I just wonder whether the allegations of anti-semitism in the article warrant the prominence that they have been given.

(And don't get me wrong, I think it's a good article and offer you my congratulations - I just raise an eyebrow over this unsupported allegation.) --Major Bonkers (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I am just speechless that you can think that. I'm not Jewish or black so I have no axe to grind one way or another. I just read rather a lot of history books. Giano 15:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree w/Giano, this is rather like asking for a citation that British Irish policy was based on the presumption of Anglican ascendancy. You need only to look at the long and tortured history of attempting to get Jews into parliament; Baron de Rothschild is a good example of this. Disraeli was an Anglicized Jew and still faced hostility over the matter, from both Protestants and Catholics (cf Daniel O'Connell's infamous speech denouncing Disraeli, I can't recall the exact date). That Wikipedia doesn't have good coverage of the topic is a failing on Wikipedia's part; I freely admit the Disraeli article doesn't say enough on the subject and I accept responsibility for that. Mackensen (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Well, the only evidence that has been offered so far of alleged Victorian upper-class anti-semitism is Lord Spencer advising The Prince of Wales not to go to the Rothschild's ball: you say because they were Jewish, I suggest because they were seen as nouveau riche. In either case, that seems pretty thin evidence to me: Spencer did not, after all, say to the Prince, 'Actually, sir, why don't you join me and the lads as we're going down the East End this evening for some Jew-bashing and we'd like you to tag along.' The fact remains that for all of the horrible anti-semitism in Victorian upper-class society, Hannah Primrose married into the aristocracy (and never once seems to have mentioned anti-semitism), and Disraeli became Prime Minister. Either these people were the exceptions that prove the rule or the much vaunted Victorian anti-semitism didn't exist.

I should make another point: Googling a later politician, Michael Howard and anti-semitism produces 575,000 hits (against 20,000 for Disraeli). I acknowledge that we're not comparing like with like, of course, because we're dealing with journalists versus historians; but my point is that the Jewishness of these two politicians is used as a shorthand by their opponents to suggest the foreign. Is this anything more than cheap political brickbats: Margaret Thatcher is strident and uncaring, George Bush is an idiot?

As a personal point, I suspect that the British people, with the loss of the Empire, have become a lot less cosmopolitan and outward-looking. I rather suspect that the High Victorians were more enlightened and generous of other cultures than we are nowadays.

I also prefer to read history books, recently particularly on Poland. Anti-semitism in that country caused the death of between 20 - 25% of the country's population during the Second World War, and I'm wary of cheapening the horror of that by labeling others, who might unthinkingly or ignorantly use a Jewish tag as a label, with the same epithets that we apply to Nazis.--Major Bonkers (talk) 17:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If you read the notes there are quite a few quotes from reference books. There is also mention of the Duchess of Cleveland's and Queen Victoria's views to Jewish people entering the peerage. Disraeli became Prime-Minister and an Earl but he was (at least officially) a Christian. Because 19th century anti-Semitism in Britain pales when compared to that in mainland Europe does not mean it did not happen or cannot be mentioned. Giano 17:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what measure of proof might be satisfactory here. It's also important that the manner in which anti-semitism was expressed differed between Great Britain and, say, Russian Poland. The Jewish population in Britain was small, prosperous, and assimilated. In Britain the great questions were whether Jews could hold high legal and political offices, or receive peerages (similar in some respects to Catholic disabilities before 1829). In Eastern Europe the questions were rather more fundamental, but that doesn't change the fundamental fact that the Victorian establishment was anti-semitic in outlook. A good textbook case is the debate of the Jewish Bill in 1848, prompted by Baron de Rothschild's election for the City of London. Lord John Russell, introducing the bill, hedged in all kinds of ways--Jews were few in number, Jews were prosperous, etc. His speech was not some stirring defense of toleration. The Tories in the House of Commons opposed him to man, save Disraeli and Lord George Bentinck. Opposition in the House of Lords was significant, including a majority of the Anglican bishops (who also spoke on the measure), and numerous peers. The nature of this opposition was significant; speakers would often express their approbation for a particular person while denouncing the race. I can provide specific citations later, but this stuff is all in Hansard and easily referenced. Mackensen (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Thank you for yours. Afraid I must log off v. shortly (bathtime), but I promise to have a look at the article's references tomorrow. Here's the leading Wikipedia article on the subject of the Jews in Victorian England: Emancipation of the Jews in England. By contrast, the corresponding article re. Poland is much fuller and notably fair: History of Jews in Poland. I think we should draw a distinction between (1) minor abuse, labeling ('bad manners'); (2) a reluctance to share political power (both of which presumably occurred and occur in Britain); and (3) state or societal opposition, about which I remain to be convinced. Agree with Mackensen that this subject needs to be fleshed out. I suspect that we'll find that the sheer length of Victoria's reign saw a change in attitudes between its beginning and its end.--Major Bonkers (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Anti-Semitism is anti-Semitism no matter how and in what form it manifests iteself. There are further adjectives and words to describe the acute anti-Semitism that has taken place in mainland Europe and elsewhere over the last centuries. Giano 09:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with you. See the Wikipedia article definition of 'anti-semitism'. What Victorian society produced was examples of tactlessness, occasionally rudeness (deliberate or not), and, in the case of Disraeli, insult. (Just like today, in fact.) All of these were at the individual level. What society did not produce was a deliberate or systematic bias against, or oppression of, the Jews (other than at a political level, where they were excluded, rather than ignored or oppressed). Jews were still the Queen's subjects and entitled to the full protection of an impartial law. There was no repeat of the Gordon Riots in respect of Jewish emancipation, offensive pamphleting, or political or religious campaigning against Jews (other than on the subject of emancipation and so far as I am aware), no pogrom-ing and no ghetto-isation. Frankly, Hannah Primrose seems to have led an enviably charmed life.--Major Bonkers (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"Hannah Primrose seems to have led an enviably charmed life" apart from the fact it was rather short and she was maried to what appears to be a rather petulant egocentric. I would agree with that, I don't think that fact is in dispute. Regarding whether or not she lived in a society with anti-Semitic prejudices, I'm afraid the authors of all the reference books used to write the article do not agree with you. The article even discusses her own husband's and Mother-in-law's anti-Semitic behaviour. If I had added every anti-Semitic reference in each of the books I used, that would have been wrong because it would have over-stated the anti-Semitism by making those references out of proportion to other facts in the article. I'm afraid whether you like it or not late Victorian Britain was full of prejudices on one kind or another. It was just a sign of the times No where does the article state it was comparable with that of Europe in the 1930s and 40s but why should it? Nor does the article make any false claims as to the degree of anti-Semitism. Giano 14:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we're more-or-less exhausting this issue. In his book, The Polish House, Radek Sikorski describes how the first Jew that he ever met (in his British exile) told him that, of course, the Poles were all profoundly anti-semitic. (Not unsurprisingly, he was a bit taken aback by this remark.) (I've also seen this myself: my wife, who is Polish, was told exactly the same thing by a well-known Anglo-Jewish artist. Is this evidence of anti-polonism or simply tactlessness and repetition of a received opinion?) I just think that what you are describing as a widespread anti-semitic bias could, just as easily, be described as a succession of ignorant, and perhaps offensive, remarks, but almost completely without malicious intent. After all, in 1850 (the year before HP's birth), Palmerstone had threatened war on behalf of Don Pacifico, a Portuguese Jew born in Gibraltar. That's a pretty clear statement to all concerned that Jews are considered fully British subjects.--Major Bonkers (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we have to agree to disagree. The page agrees 100% with its many references. While I may occasionally discretely slip in a small piece of own research into an architectural page, I am not prepared to do so on the biography of the wife of a British Prime-Minister. Especially when it is the only comprehensive biography that I know anywhere. No one can easily on the internet check the facts of this page or cross reference so it has to be 100% kosher (pun intended). Giano 17:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not going to add 'neutrality' or 'citation' tags, it just seems to me that the evidence is pretty thin and largely hearsay: Spencer advising that arbiter elegantiae not to hob-nob (on ambiguous grounds), which advice (according to the Young citation) was ignored; yet this is turned into evidence of anti-semitism; it seems to me that he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't (mutatis mutandis, had the Prince and Princess not gone to the ball, that would have been evidence of philosemitism?) The poor bugger can't win! I'll add a plea to the Emancipation of the Jews in England Talk page and see if someone can come up with something more authoritative. --Major Bonkers (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Purely because of you, and at considerable inconvenience and even more expense, I have trudged through the drizzle to half the bookshops in London, and have now purchased a 2nd hand Ferguson (my other is in Italy) and a bio of Disraeli. Please note the anti-Semitic references are now clearer as a result, although I suspect you will like them less. I have yet to open the Disraeli, but when I have finished attempting to earn a living later today - this too may provide some more references. Giano 12:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Disraeli, it is a commonplace that he faced anti-semitism throughout his career, although the nature varied. He was subjected to repeated harassment during his election campaigns (see, among others, "Dizzi-Ben-Dizzi": Disraeli as Alien, by Anthony S. Wohl in The Journal of British Studies, Vol. 34, No. 3, Victorian Subjects. (Jul., 1995), pp. 375-411) and during his second premiership, when he was subject to repeated attacks and insinuations that he was not only un-English but anti-English. These attacks came from Anglican figures, professors (Goldwin Smith), and writers (Carlyle). Witness Carlyle's celebrated remark that Disraeli was a "cursed old Jew, not worth his weight in cold bacon." It goes on and on. Perhaps the most serious issue is that you'd have to provide reliable sources stating that anti-semitism did not exist, or was not "serious" in Victorian Britain. This you will not be able to achieve. Mackensen (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Disraeli, I feel, is almost certainly a special case because he was a prominent politician and, as I note above, was subject to the knockabout caricaturisation of (what passed, and still passes, for) political discourse. I don't think that it is reasonable to extend the specific circumstances of the reaction to Disraeli into a general principle that Britain was anti-semitic. Before the last election, for example, the Labour party published a poster depicting Michael Howard as Fagin. What are we to make of this? Certainly, I believe that anti-semitism was not serious in Victorian Britain: there was freedom of worship, the protection of the law and state, social acceptance (which is the issue that I suspect we are actually arguing about), and, at the end of the period, emancipation. Frankly, it's arguable that the Catholics (at the beginning of the Victorian period) and the Welsh non-conformists (at the end of it) had a worse deal than the Jews. There is, actually, some evidence of British philosemitism which I have turned up, albeit 'After the Victorians' (book of the same name, A.N.Wilson (2005) Hutchinson, London. Thus:

• (p.99): Welsh identification with the Jews became, on an analogical level, all but complete. Their chapels - Bethel, Bethesda, Ephraim, Ebenezer - took their names from the Bible, as did many of their villages. [...] After the English effectively obliterated the right of the Welsh to possess family names, many Welsh families took Jewish names such as Aaron or Samuel. (By paradox, many Jewish immigrants took Welsh names such as Lewis or Davis as rationalisations of Levi or David.)

• (p.100): One of the most striking ways in which the British male of this date [first decade of the 20h. century] expressed a feeling of kinship with the Jews was in the popularity of circumcision. 'It is a curious fact,' wrote Ronald Hyam in his masterly 'Empire and Sexuality', 'that outside the traditional circumcising communities [Jewish, Muslim, Melanesian, Amerindian and some African ^{[citation in original]}] the only Westerners to adopt it as a common practice were the English-speaking peoples.' ^{[citation in original]} The plot of George Eliot's last great novel, 'Daniel Deronda', published in 1876, had hinged upon the discovery by the central character that he was Jewish, a fact unknown until his mature years. An American critic of our own day remarked that 'Deronda had only to look'. ^{[citation in original]} But not, in 1876, if he had been of Jewish origin, but brought up from birth as if gentile.

• (p.101): Lloyd George himself said: 'I was taught in school far more about the history of the Jews than the history of my own land. I could tell you all the kings of Israel. But I doubt whether I could have named half-a-dozen of the Kings of England and no more of the Kings of Wales. ^{[citation in original]} The paragraph goes on to observe that Lloyd George, acting as a solicitor, drew up the documents submitted to the British government for a Jewish homeland.

• (p.102): (Discussing a Welsh riot in 1911 in which Jewish shops were attacked, which Winston Churchill described as a pogrom - almost certainly a hyperbole) Alfred de Rothschild, Sir Edward Sassoon and the 'Jewish World' tried to pass it off as mere 'lust of criminals: rioting would have taken place, Jews or no Jews'. Riot or pogrom, the authorities moved quickly to stop it: Churchill sent the troops in, and two rioters were shot dead.

I would like to stress that I have no complaints about the article as written, and I acknowledge that the citations refer to anti-semitism. The actual underlying evidence, though, seems to be limited to the political attacks on Disraeli (and if Queen Victoria really was anti-semitic, she seems to have moderated her opinions in respect of him) and a few stupid remarks that should probably more accurately be passed off as bad manners. --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• That is fascinating Major Bonkers. Lloyd George was indeed a lucky man to be so educated. Not all were so fortunate, while Lloyd George was studying his Hebrew history on the same country at the same time the boys of Harrow School were organizing "Jew hunts" (Ferguson, p 791) I believe that educational establishment was quite well known at the time for providing "The Empire" with many of its leaders. I don't want to belabour the point, and add these facts to the page, because it will make Britain seem more anti-semitic than it was. Giano 18:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Both Palmerstone and Churchill were Old Harrovians. Presumably the Ferguson quotation is cited back to this book. However, these ejusdem generis arguments usually fail with the application of a little common-sense: the reason that this incident found itself in the archives was presumably because someone became aware of it and objected and the matter was sorted-out (a bit like this incident). When I think back to my own time at Harrow - you may be unaware that I attended this school, Giano - the nicknames of my contemporaries included 'Yid', 'Paki', 'Bog-rat', 'the Flid' (a reference to a Thalidomide victim), and a play on words involving the individual's surname and the word 'Runt' (another individual having the play on words with 'Whore'). Although these terms might be objectionable, they were not intended maliciously, and the individuals concerned took them in good part. It was a robust and un-politically correct environment a bit like the army, apparently. Returning to the issue in question, however, the point remains that of the most major outbreak of perhaps anti-semitism, the 1911 riot, the Jews themselves denied that the riot was anti-semitic in motive.--Major Bonkers (talk) 12:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• No the Jew hunts are cited back to this book here [5] page 224 and another book [6] page pp 98 f. It is hard to see that hunting little boys out and then beating them up when found us anything other than malicious. However bearing in mind public schools of the day I expect they would have found another minority had not they had the Jews. My point is though that they did have the Jews and the fact they even thought to hold "Jew hunts" is indicative of the public thinking of the time. Perhaps though the Harrow victim (Charles Rothschild - I think that is the right one) fared better than poor Lord Rosebery over at Eton who was being buggered by the staff (McKinstry, pp. 25–31, discusses this at length). I'm sure that today under Barnaby Lennon (now there is good red link for you far better and more useful than those dull old baronets) Harrow is a model of perfect race relations. However, I imagine you probably post-dated the era of the Jew Hunts so it is hard to fully comprehend the public thinking of the day - I think it was probably as Young suggests ( page 18) : "Most people at the time were casually anti-Semitic, despite the Prince of Wales hobnobbing with Jewish financiers" - I think "casually" is the important word that is to say they most Britons, at the time, would not harm a Jew, go out of their way to offend a Jew or even kick his dog but neither they would not go out of their way to advance a Jew's cause, become best friends with a Jew or employ a Jew, abd they certaily did not want to "Milord" a Jew. They saw being a Jew as a stigma rather than asset and that mind-set is anti-Semitic albeit very much less than was found on mainland Europe at the time. Now interesting as this debate is, if you want to continue it, I don;t think this is the right place as it is going nowhere regarding this article. Please reply if you want on my talk page. Giano 18:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I like to have the last word! Alternative explanations:

• Queen Victoria was initially concerned at enobling a Jew because of her constitutional role as head of the Church of England;
• Charles Rothschild (or whoever) was an unpopular schoolboy who was duffed-up by his mates. His Judaism was incidental to his treatment;
• Lord Spencer was a bit of a snob but not anti-semitic;
• Disraeli, being a politician, was subject to knock-about abuse that made (offensive) reference to his Judaism.

The sole 'authoritative reference' to this issue is the quotation from Young, Most people at the time were casually anti-Semetic, despite the Prince of Wales hob-nobbing with Jewish financiers. This quotation is itself apparently un-referenced and ignores copious evidence to the contrary. The 'concession' made in the last paragraph, above, is actually very close to what I believe: people treated Jews with a large degree of toleration. There is a considerable leap, however, to get from that state of indifference to the active persecution of anti-semitism.--Major Bonkers (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Anti Semitism still being debated here??

Why is this still being debated? This article is not the appropriate place to go into details of British anti semitism during the Victorian period, but it is appropriate to make reference to it. If Major Bonkers or anyone else really wants to dispute that anti semitism existed, find the cites and place them in the appropriate article. But this doesn't seem a useful discussion to me. And having the last word is not always a useful character trait. ++Lar: t/c 11:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

see also: Zionism#Non-Jewish Support.--Major Bonkers (talk) 10:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Quotation style

Just a minor point, but may help the FAC... normal typographical convention is that quotations are set either in quotemarks, or in italics, but not both (except where emphasis is needed within a quotation). --mervyn 18:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC) Who cares? There're way too many rumors coming out each day. And most of them turn out to be untrue. I even start thinking if it is true that Charlie Sheen once found his love on the celeb and millionaire daitng site wealthymingle..com. Whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.225.85.132 (talk) 08:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I did it this way because there are a great many quotes, and I wanted it to be very easily differentiated between my text and quotes. I believe that contemporary quotes give a better insight into a person than any modern text - basically I see myself as merely collecting quotes and placing them within context to make a biography. Don't forget that Wikipedia does not allow us as authors to draw anything but the most obvious conclusions, therefore the placing of quotes can lead a reader to a conclusion that we can not, thus it is imperative that the quotes are very obvious indeed so that the reader can see he is not being led or misled. Giano 18:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Marriage section

I put a cn tag next to "and certainly many high ranking officials at her court were anti-Semites" but it was removed. Can somebody point to the source for this? Thanks, --Tom 16:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Do the sexy girl and the handsome man meet each other at street? No they just met at a celebrity and millionaire dating site called wealthymingle..com .handsome men and sexy girls are there. It is all by yourself. So good to see sexy girls there .You can also find your handsome guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.225.85.132 (talk) 08:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ferguson, Niall (1998). The World's Banker: The History of the House of Rothschild. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ISBN 0 297 815393. p. 772 is given as the reference. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Does that cite specifically say that "certainly many high ranking officials at her court were anti-Semites"?? I am not at a library right now, otherwise I would try to find that book. Thanks, --Tom 16:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not either, sorry - have to wait for Giano. Although I must say Giano is normally so thorough in his sourcing I would be quite surprised, not to say astonished, to find any issues with any article by him. And the statement does have that ref. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

To be quite honest - I can't remember the exact wording - but the anti-Semitism of the Spencer story certainly came from the source cited - an he was a high ranking official. I don't have that book with me so I can't check it and say for sure. There was certainly a lot of anti-Semitism surrounding the Queen, and I don't think she was innocent of it herself - although she seems to have cared greatly for Disraeli and made him an exception - she was certainly very anti promoting Jews to the peerage for a long time. I will have to get hold of the Ferguson book again and check this out to be 100% sure. Giano 21:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Giano, thanks for the response. I am not question the "truth" about the material, just that it is sourced properly and can be verified. This seems to be a sort of generalized blanket statement about the officials in the Queens court. Anyways, no biggie. Cheers! --Tom 14:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No you are right, it is out of the page untill I can find the book again and re-check the precise wording - the Spencer cite is correct, but the more general one should also be cited too - this is the trouble with not having the book by one, on the the day the article hits the main page - also I wrote it months ago so my memory is not as fresh as it could be. Giano 21:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Richest woman in England

Seriously, does that include Queen Victoria? • TheBendster (talk) 26 September 2007, 17:50 (UTC)

I wondered about that too, and did not add the often mentioned fact until I found it reliably cited. I think it does mean she was richer than Queen Victoria - even at that date the monarch did not personally own the Royal collections, palaces or estates but I am prepared to stand corrected if someone comes up with a cite that Victoria was even more wealthy. I do know that George IV was very profligate and would have been in serious debt were in not for Parliament paying his creditors, it is unlikely that William IV during his short reign would have saved from the civil list anything approaching the wealth of the Rothschilds, so it is more than likely that she was in real terms wealthier than the Queen. Giano 18:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Do the sexy girl and the handsome man meet each other at street? No they just met at a celebrity and millionaire dating site called wealthymingle..com .handsome men and sexy girls are there. It is all by yourself. So good to see sexy girls there .You can also find your handsome guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.225.85.132 (talk) 08:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Most interesting, many thanks. • TheBendster (talk) 26 September 2007, 20:59 (UTC)

But nonetheless the Queen had far grander homes, far more servants, and far more money to spend, making the countess's status as the richest woman rather empty. Abberley2 22:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The Queen's expeditures came out of the Civil List.--Wetman 06:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Only Balmoral Castle and Osborne House were the Queen's property, Lady Rosebery had more homes many of which were if not larger on a par in size. Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle could be considered more grand but were not the Queen's - I would doubt the Queen had more loose cash to spend - more servants is a debatable point - what constitutes a servant in a Royal Court - the unpaid aristocrat acting a "Groom of the X" or "Master of the X"? On Queen Victoria's accession she had have her mother's debts repaid by parliament because she had insufficient cash herself. Giano 06:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any figures, but Victoria is generally seen as very canny at getting the Civil List boosted & building up the present wealth of the monarchy. Their large land holdings were probably relatively less valuable than now, so I don't see it as unlikely that Hannah was richer. The Royals were exempted from death duties until recently, which may well be how they pulled ahead. But both royal and Rothschild finances are equally impenetrable - did the Rothschild Continuation trusts involve Hannah? - so some weasel words, referenced to a reputable weasel, might be the way. Lets get that "considered by many" count up - you can help! Johnbod 13:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact is reffed, I did not make it up, so I think it can remain as fact. I believe she was richer than the Queen. Remember her father and his brothers were financing whole Governments and countries and funding wars. Death duties at that time were negligible on all estates. I'm currently re-reading a bio of Q Victoria, and it seems for the first part of her reign she was constantly after money and repaying debts of her parents etc. My assumption (I'm only 1/3 of the way through) is that she became richer during the latter part of her reign through pure economy and not spending after the death of her husband. I saw the contents of Mentmore (I know that is own research but the catalogues exist) in tact, they were equally on a par with the Royal collection and this was just one of her houses, and she owned them herself, not the state. QV most certainly did not have 2 million in cash, and the more bios and reff book I read (there are none on Hannah, what you see here is the longest and most complete anywhere) the more it seems she had. Mines in Australia and America, business interests all over the world. Like the Royals the Rothschilds are inscrutable but suddenly in an authorised biography of Rosebery one reads, just slipped in, reference to a mine in S Africa, a ranch in S America and so on. I could have made this page twice the length, but had to confine it to a decent length, nor did I want to make a "money section". As it is a much quoted and referenced fact - I think we have to accept it. I have always understood that the Royal family's huge wealth did not truly materialise until the reign of George V who died in 1936. Giano 13:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I think it was Victoria - you won't I think find Edward VII having many financial troubles. But then their wealth was later vastly boosted by development and longterm rises in property rentals & capital values on land that had always been owned by the Crown or Duchy on Cornwall. Death duties kicked in around 1920 as you probably know. One might wonder whether your ref, or anyone, is in a position to put an actual figure on Hannah's wealth, or that of the Queen, or just recording the view of the weasels of the day. Johnbod 14:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure I've read in one of the Rothschild books that they used to lend Edward VII money, Queen alexandra was constantly in debt after his death. It was definitly George V or rather Stamfordham who brokered the tax breaks which helped their finances considerably. Giano 14:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Betrothal detail

A minor point but Lady Beaconsfield died in 1872 so could not have introduced Hannah de Rothschild to Lord Rosebery in 1875 as stated. Dizzysrattle (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I checked the reference, and it does state that she introduced them, but I have removed the date. Perhaps that is wrong and they had a long "getting to know each other" period. Giano (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This is better - however, the mention of "two years earlier" in Note 13 (regarding the purchase of the Suez canal shares)also does not make sense as this did happen in 1875. Dizzysrattle (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

POV

This article is extremely POV. You can't, for example, push this kind of character evaluation and historical opinion in the lead section of a wikipedia article: "... remains an enigmatic figure largely ignored by historians and often regarded as notable only for financing her husband's three ambitions: to marry an heiress, win the Epsom Derby, and become Prime Minister (the second and third of these possibly apocryphal ambitions were achieved after her death).[2] In truth, she was her husband's driving force and motivation." etc etc

Not to mention the constant attacks on Count Rosebery.

I can see the editor of the article read a biography which pushed this agenda. But it's not wikipedia's place to paraphrase some biography. We stick to verifiable facts, not opinions. Relevant sections include:WP:NPOV WP:SYNTH and WP:Undue Please read these articles. Avaya1 (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I read several biographies of the Rosebery and one of his and the subjects son, whom I knew personally. I also read numerous other comtemporary biographies and read many letters. If you have a problem take it up with the primary authors.  Giano  22:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh and he was not a count, but an Earl - he was British!  Giano  22:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Finally, one can say what one likes in the lead without a reference - so long as it is proved in the article proper - which it is - every word of it, and fully referenced.  Giano  23:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

We have to distinguish between facts and opinions. Just because we read some opinions in a book (or in three books, or a hundred books) doesn't make those opinions facts.

Statements such as these (and the whole article is littered with them) are opinions, not facts: (i) "In truth, she was her husband's driving force and motivation." (ii) "His premiership of the United Kingdom was shambolic". (iii) "he wandered in a political wilderness, directionless and exceedingly eccentric".

I refer to this Wikipedia:DUE#Impartial_tone Plenty of people (and sources) might claim that Tony Blair was a shambolic prime minister, but that doesn't mean we can write that, in the editorial voice, on his wikipedia page.

It would be acceptable to preface those statements with "In McKinstry's opinion". But even then, it could lack balance. As per WP:DUE Avaya1 (talk) 04:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No it would not - fact is fact - the first and official biography was written by the Marquess of Crewe - his best friend and son in law in 1933 - even in those days of less than candid sycophancy it lays bear (albeit in floral langiage) the man's faults. All historians agree the the premiership was shambolic, it was worse than that it was dreadful!- if you check your history you will see by mid term he was an insomniac hooked on morphine - the article here is in fact quite kind to him, concentrating on his wife who is the subject and dead by then. It is mentioned here becasue (as referenced) even Queen Victoria thought that he was deteriorating because his wife was no longer holding the show together. His supposed homosexuality is glossed over quickly here - very quickly, with barely a mention of the many reffs to support it that I could have used - so beleive me, if you want a chractor assassination one could easily have been provided. His great friend and secretary was a pedophile many of his other friends were what one could politely call "odd." - do you see any of that article? - No! You need to do a lot of reading and studying and then return here and say this article is POV! Were I to chose to write Rosebery's biography on Wikipedia it would be accused of being uncomprehensive were I to select only nice facts to put him in a good light. This biography of his wife is more than fair to both of them and presents an accurate picture as possible of her marriage - to pretend that he had a doting and adoring husband would be wrong - to overdwell on his failings would also be wrong on her page. Now go and study your history.  Giano  08:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh and finally. Of the many published sources used to write this, three of the biographies those of Crewe, Young and McKinstry relied heavily on Rosebery's own archives and were all endorsed by his son, grandson and great grandson and receved to wide accademic acclaim. This is the historically and accademically accepted view of him and it is staying - and please do not go talking of agendas and POV when you clearly do not have the least idea of knowledge of the subject.  Giano  08:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

All it needs now is a lovely infobox. (ducks) :D SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 21:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring report

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Bender235 reported by User:SchroCat (Result: ). Please read over the discussion there before considering a revert of the hidden comment regarding infoboxes. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

@Giano: could you please elaborate why this page in particular "does not require an infobox" and/or where the consensus on this issue has been established? Especially since both her husband's and her father's articles have infoboxes. --bender235 (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The page does not need an info box (which is not obligatory) because all such relevant information is in the lead. It has been a long standing Wikipedia tradition that inclusion of boxes are best left to the principal contributors to a page. Since I wrote almost the entire page, that is indisputably me - that is not Wikipedia ownership that is the way Wikipedia works on the subject of info boxes. Giano (talk) 10:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, first of all the "principal contributor" has just as much to say about an article as anyone else. There is no "long standing tradition" that grants ownership of an article or any other special rights for you, regardless of how much of this article you wrote.

Now, while infoboxes aren't mandatory, they are commonly used throughout Wikipedia. As I said, the subjects husband's and father's articles have infoboxes, too, as do most biographical articles that are being linked to in this article. It would take a better reason than an "I don't like them"-veto by the articles self-described owner to prevent their inclusion.

As for new "relevant information in the lead", infoboxes are not supposed to supplant but to summarize the information there. They are meant for someone who quickly wants to see where Mrs. Primrose died or who her children are without having to scroll to the relevant section at the bottom of the article (something especially critical for mobile users).

Bottom line, there are good reasons to include an infoboxes. What are the reasons not include it? --bender235 (talk) 13:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Info boxes are not mandatory. All of the key points are included in the first sentences of the lead in this article. It is the job of the lead to summarise the article not the infobox. The inclusion of infoboxes in other linked articles is of no relevance whatsoever. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Both the lead and the infobox can and should summarize the key facts of the article. As I said, they should complement each other. The lead is the place to briefly describe a person, while the infobox is the place to bullet-list key facts, like birth/death dates and places, offices held, and relations to other people. As I said, the lead does not include where Primrose died or who her children are, for instance.

I'm still waiting for an explanation why this article in particular would suffer if we include an infobox the same way almost every biography on Wikipedia does. Where's the harm? In this case, would not even change the article layout since the infobox would be in place of the portrait picture that is already there and the vast blank space right of the table of content. --bender235 (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Bender, that's not the way things work. It is not up to anyone to argue the continued absence of an IB: it is up to you to argue the case for inclusion. The article has not had an IB for nine years (and did not have one when going through the FA review process), so there is a consensus that the absence does not detract from the article. Can you explain your rationale for inclusion, based on guidelines and policies as they relate to this specific article. - SchroCat (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I thought I gave plenty of reason already, but if you want to I can repeat and summarize them again.

The fact that virtually all biographies on Wikipedia have infoboxes is not by accident. Infoboxes and lead sections complement each other. Not everything that would be in the infobox can or should be in the lead. For instance, per MOS:BIRTHPLACE birth and death place are not supposed to be mentioned in the opening brackets after the subject's name. But they could and should be in an infobox to the right.

As of right now, if one wants to find out where Primrose died, when her children were born, or when she married, one has to scroll down the article to the relevant section. I'm not saying all this information should be packed in the lead, to the contrary: we can make it convenient by packing it into an infobox.

By the way: the reason why this article hasn't had an infobox for the past 8 years is probably because on 25 April 2008 Giano added a coded message that most likely scared away potential editors that wanted to add an infobox, even though the message is completely void by Wikipedia rules. --bender235 (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x 3 "virtually all biographies on Wikipedia have infoboxes": not true, I'm afraid, particularly among the better-written (i.e. FA-rated) articles. IBs work in bios where there are stats, positions, offices, etc, so politicians, sportspeople, military personnel etc. Outside that they become a quagmire of factoids. The fact you have listed a series of factoids you want is part of the problem: what one person wants to find out (inside leg measurement, date they first went abroad, name of the church they got married in) most will think ridiculous and pointless. To find information one doesn't have to "scroll down the article": one can use the links of the contents page to drop to the relevant section. 9and if someone really is interested to find the name of the her first dog they can use their browser's search facility to find that particular factoid, without it cluttering up the top right-hand corner of the page). All the rest of the key, important information that help understanding about the individual (as opposed to random factoids) is help in the lead, where it sits in context. - SchroCat (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

As to the 'coded message', I doubt whether that would really have stopped anyone from adding one if they really wanted - it's hardly a way of locking the page. I would counsel that the message is tweaked to add "without discussing the matter on the talk page first" to show it's advisory and not a cast iron rule. - SchroCat (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, sure the interested reader could find out the facts I mentioned by searching the complete article with his browser functions. Maybe we could also suggest they should Google for the facts they're interest in in the first place, how about that? I don't understand why we have to make it inconvenient on purpose in this article. Birth place, death place, nationality and other basic facts is something every encyclopedia article would want to list up front. An infobox is a perfect way to do this.

As for Giano's message: it doesn't say "please discuss the issue first." It doesn't say "editors have determined we don't need an infobox on this page" (because there never has been such discussion apparently). It says "DO NOT ADD AN INFOBOX", in all caps, as if Giano had the right to decide this par ordre du mufti for all eternity. I'm sure it discouraged a lot of editors to even attempt to add an infobox over the past years. --bender235 (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually if they have Googled "Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery" they will have been presented with an IB on the Google search results page (all courtesy of the horrible Wikidata). The search for "facts" is a moot problem. What is dross or fluff to one, is the nugget of fact that they are searching for, so perhaps we should go the whole hog and delete the text (the suff that provides knowledge and understanding) and just have an idiot box (full of disconnected factoids that provide no understanding at all)?

I am aware of what the message says and doesn't say. I suggested a tweak to it. And I doubt it has stopped anyone at all from adding anything: I doubt there has been an IB warrior twitching to add anything. As the article has been through two community review processes without complaints that it was somehow incomplete, there is a consensus that the inclusion is not vital to aid readers in their understanding of the subject. Factoid hunters can also find the key and important information in the lead if that is what they are after. - SchroCat (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Since there is already a prominent portrait image of Primrose next to the lead, an infobox would not be much more than a structured image frame. It would barely alter the articles layout and basically only use up the vast blank space right of the TOC. But I guess if somebody who wants to add an infobox has to be discredited as an "IB warrior," as if we're talking about some crazy person, there's no point of further arguing here. It seems like I stumbled into an ideological hornets nest, apparently the last holdout against infoboxes on Wikipedia. So be it. --bender235 (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Why must we keep having this same ridiculous conversation? Infoboxes are not compulsory. The sooner arb rules something to stop these tedious arguments every day the better.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think this article requires an infobox. I don't think it would improve the article in any way. I'm generally in favor of summarizing some key biographical facts in an infobox when they're scattered around a large lead, but in this case, all the relevant facts are in the first two sentences. They're already quite condensed, readable, and easy to find – perhaps even more so than they would be in an infobox. I think the edit war over this was downright silly and certainly unjustified, but SchroCat and others have a point. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Bender235: Speaking as one of the principal criminals in the "Infoboxes are a good thing" gang, I don't see much enthusiasm for an infobox here. I have little appetite for yet another round of infobox wars on this article, particularly as I regard Giano as a wiki-friend, and I really wouldn't want to see this disagreement escalate to the point where we're back at ArbCom, which would end badly for many. Bender, I'll defend your right to remove inappropriate hidden text, and I'll defend your right to make a bold edit (including adding an infobox), but these issues are only ever eventually resolved by discussion, and there are many other articles that we could be profitably improving. I hope you'll be willing to let this go. --RexxS (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Feel there is dire need for a time line of events here, because again and again people confuse what this whole issue (include the insane episode on WP:AN/EW)

1. I stumbled upon this article, saw it didn't have an infobox, and wanted to add one. In edit mode I saw the hidden message added by Giano in 2008 saying DO NOT ADD AN INFO BOX. I was curious to find out what were the reasons for this community decision, and found that instead the issue was never discussed anywhere. Giano had simply added it on his own authority.
2. So I decided to be bold and add an infobox. Not long after, Giano came along and reverted. So I did the WP:BRD thing and opened this very thread on the talk page. SchroCat entered the discussion, and it became clear that the majority of editors associated with this article were not in favor of an infobox (or infoboxes in general).
3. I decided to let go, but before moving on I decide to fix three issues with the article: (i) the inconsistent use of em/en dashes, (ii) an outdated external link by adding {{Jewish Encyclopedia}}, and (iii) moving the aforementioned hidden message from one place (the source code) to a better place (the edit notice) since I felt like it should remain given the apparent consensus on the issue. And that's where the madness started.
4. SchroCat kept reverting my contributions without explaining what was wrong with them other than that I was supposedly "edit warring" and approaching 3RR. I eventually did, and ended up on WP:AN/EW.

So, to end this insane episode, may I ask: why exactly is there consensus (according to SchroCat) to keep this hidden message in the source code rather than in the edit notice? --bender235 (talk) 11:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Because nobody likes to be reverted, and a simple note asking for one not to be added before prior consensus, saves a lot of humiliation and a whole load of dramah. oh, oppose a box here, too. Cassianto^Talk 12:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

You do realize that an edit notice serves that same purpose, do you? --bender235 (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

So what's your problem then? Cassianto^Talk 12:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I figured the edit notice is a much better place for this sort of "warning" than a clucky all-caps message in the source code, since it can be wikified, colored, even a picture being added to it. --bender235 (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Asthetics aside, they both convey the same meaning which is the crux here. I think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. Cassianto^Talk 12:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, of course it is about asthetics. Text in all-caps and bold face also conveys the same meaning as regular text, and still we fix it. --bender235 (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Not really, no. It's pointless having a pretty road sign, isn't it? I just want to know where I'm bloody going! The caps, I imagine, are to distinguish it from the rest of the lower case text found within the edit screen; I'm sure Giano didn't add it in order to come across as shouty. With over 5 million articles in need of improvement, I find it odd that you are concerning yourself so emphatically with what is, at the end of the day, a minor hidden message. Cassianto^Talk 13:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

After over 400k edits, I think I've done my fair share improving Wikipedia, believe you me. --bender235 (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The hidden text

So far no one has started a thread to discuss the hidden text on this page, despite all the hoo-har (if it's worth breaking the right line rule, it's more worth having a discussion). There is currently an edit notice hard-wired into the page that carries the exact same text as the hidden notice.

1. I suggest that we should avoid using such a template. Firstly it makes the situation appear much more official than a small, polite request to use the talk page. Secondly there is a great chance the notice will not be seen (most people ignore the ephemera surrounding the edit box when editing.
2. I suggest that the exact same text is moved back to the position of the hidden note. A small polite note asking people to use the talk page on a particular issue is not that big a deal, particularly if the aim is to avoid edit warring. People are able to remove the small polite notice if they really wish to add an IB (much as bender did when he added the IB recently). – SchroCat (talk) 07:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I support the general thrust of SchroCat's reasoning. I would suggest that now we have had a discussion (above), there is little to lose and much to gain from alerting editors to that discussion. Perhaps we might consider adding a hidden comment along the lines of:

• "Before considering adding an infobox to this article, please review the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hannah_Primrose,_Countess_of_Rosebery#Infobox where the general weight of opinion was against including one. Where there is an explicit prior consensus, it is always better to raise the matter on the talk page first."

That would politely explain the current position, without breaching the good advice at Help:Hidden text, and hopefully remove some of the annoyance to the stewards of the article. I've deliberately used a full url as that can be quickly copied & pasted into a new browser tab for convenience. Of course it would need to be updated if and when the linked section is archived. Hopefully the maintainers of the article would remember to do that. What do others think? --RexxS (talk) 11:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hm, so it is better to put a hard-coded URL to the relevant talk page section in Wiki source code (from where it has to be "copied & pasted into a new browser tab") than using the edit notice where it would be, you know, clickable? Why exactly? --bender235 (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not very fond of edit notices, as I almost never read them myself, and I suspect I'm not alone in that. I had to check twice before I realised that there was in fact an edit notice on this article. Perhaps my brain just filters them out. In addition, they don't automatically show up on your watchlist when you watchlist the article, so you don't get alerted to changes unless you specifically add them to your watchlist - which most editors wouldn't think to do. SchroCat, for example, does not have the templateeditor flag, and as he's unable to maintain the edit notice, probably does not concern himself with it. To be frank, I'm not too bothered whether there's a hidden note or an edit notice, or both, as long as they comply with policy and are useful. Does that help? --RexxS (talk) 12:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

This makes me wonder why we have edit notices in the first place, but alright, remove the edit notice of this article and add a hidden message to the article source code.

By the way, rather than your version an accurate summary of the relevant section would be <!-- Infoboxes are not mandatory, so all your arguments in favor of them are invalid. But please try anyway to discuss the issue on the talk page. --> --bender235 (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Believe me, I've tried making a stand for the removal of inappropriate hidden text - see Talk:Gustav Holst for an on-going example. It would be briefly satisfying to put a snarky note in an article to make a point, but experience tells me that the opposing camps are very entrenched and the only chance of progress is to seize on any common ground. There is an opportunity here to find some consensus for the text of a hidden comment that could be acceptable to both sides. You don't have to believe me, but I've been in the trenches of the infobox wars for four years now, and I've learned to seek out any chance where mutually acceptable progress can be made. A friend of mine said "There is no final victory, as there is no final defeat. There is just the same battle. To be fought, over and over again." Whoever suggested that Wikipedia is not a battleground never tried to stand up for someone's right to add an infobox to an article. --RexxS (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

(Or someone's right to remove an infobox to an article too... ;-)

Yes, rex, your suggestion of the tweak to the text is fine for me. – SchroCat (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I take your point about removal of an infobox as well, and empathise, SchroCat. Do you think we could profitably duplicate (redundantly!) that sort of text in the edit notice, to find more common ground with Bender235? We could have both. You know that I'd always positively respond to a request from you if you ever wanted such a notice edited. --RexxS (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Italic quotes

MOS:NOITALQUOTE says that quotes should not be italicized unless showing emphasis. It's ugly besides. I went through and removed all the italics from quotes but was reverted by Iridescent who said that the issue was discussed at the FAC. Well that's nice, but that discussion was almost ten years ago. There's an equally old discussion in the archives (actually, the same reasoning as the FAC) justifying the style by saying that it helps the quotes stand out. Isn't that what quotation marks are for? The MOS says there should be good reason to override it and I don't think "we put too many quotes in this article and now can't tell the non-quoted text from the quoted text" is a good reason. clpo13_(talk) 22:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The MOS is intentionally formulated as a vague guideline rather than policy, and is not and never has been Holy Writ. It's routine to disregard it provided the person doing the disregarding can justify why they're disregarding it. Normal practice when we want to highlight quotes is to use pull-quotes, but that's not appropriate in this case where there are a lot of short snippets rather than one long block of text; in these circumstances, the original justification for deviating from the MOS—I did it this way because there are a great many quotes, and I wanted it to be very easily differentiated between my text and quotes. I believe that contemporary quotes give a better insight into a person than any modern text - basically I merely collect quotes and place them within context to make a biography. Don't forget that Wikipedia does not allow us as authors to draw anything but the most obvious conclusions, therefore the placing of quotes can lead a reader to a conclusion that we can not, thus it is imperative that the quotes are very obvious indeed so that the reader can see he is not being led or misled.—appears perfectly valid. ‑ Iridescent 22:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. Maybe Giano should have used more of his own words instead of coming with a bullshit excuse to make the article godawfully ugly. It might be time for a FA review. clpo13_(talk) 22:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure you know where to find WP:FAR, if you really feel the need to chest-beat that strongly. (The irony of the person saying "What good is the MOS if it can so easily ignored" having a prominent "This user thinks the best rule on Wikipedia is Ignore All Rules" userbox on their userpage does not escape me.) ‑ Iridescent 22:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how trying to improve an article is chest-beating. I'll wait for input from uninvolved parties. clpo13_(talk) 22:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• I like the difference in text to make the quotes stand out a little. I may try that on my next FAC too. – SchroCat (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• I was only drawn here by the edit war, but in my opinion, the italics should be dropped. Based on common usage, italics tend to be read as emphasis, and emphasizing an entire quote isn't helpful. Upon my first reading of some of the passages with italics, I had some difficulty navigating the text because I read the italics in a different way based on the perceived emphasis. There's also a small something to be said about uniformity in our style across the encyclopedia, although it certainly isn't the be-all and end-all that some suggest it is. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• As per Iridescent, the use of italics in this article is valid, does not distract and is perfectly justified. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I still stand by my original decision and reasoning to use italics. The large number of quotes are used here because there is no published biography of the subject as a stand alone character. Therefore to remain clearly impartial it is necessary to quote directly the original opinions of others and not insert ones own conjecture. This is the only biography of the subject anywhere. Giano (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• I think the use of itals is a nice quirk that we should see more often. I think they should be left as they are. Cassianto^Talk 21:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Editnotices/Page/Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery

Template:Editnotices/Page/Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Pppery (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Editorializing

It's inappropriate to say things in here like "this is likely to be an exaggeration," what quotes are "more revealing" or "can be taken to mean," "any shortcomings in the guest list were compensated for by the guest of honour," what comments "hint," at and what "should be remembered." I do not understand why Giano persists in reverting edits to remove such language. These are opinions, perhaps suitable for for biography but quite wrong for an encyclopedia article. Flyte35 (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It is essential to explain historical context - otherwise historical figures could be judged by the standards of today rather than that of their time. It is also pretty obvious that obscure and dated Jewish references and allusions need explaining. For instance "If the flame seize on the cedars, how will fare the hyssop on the wall: if the leviathan is brought up with a hook, how will the minnows escape..." was only explained to me after seeking help Jewish section [7], and I am reasonably educated, so to most people without an explanation it is meaningless gobbledygook. Better to let the reader have the full version and explain it, rather then me saying "The Jewish elders were opposed to the marriage.period!

There is no other published biography of this woman anywhere, even though she was the first true political wife and a leading celebrity of her day (in a day when celebrity was not a culture); therefore it is only really possible to produce an unbiased biography without own research by using multiple quotes - as these quotes were made by people over 120 years ago they often need pitting into context - especially when some of those making the quotes were on politically opposing sides or were making subtle anti-semetic points. Giano (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The style guide explains that such language is inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. There are ways to place things in historical context without editorializing. That's what I did in my edits to the piece. Flyte35 (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Bugger the MOS! If we all went by that, no one woudl ever write anything of note. Giano (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Flyte35: Please remember the MOS is a guideline, not policy. I agree with Giano that a reader's understanding is better served with the version before your edits; had Giano not reverted you, I would have. SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but it's an appropriate guideline for creating neutral, encyclopedic content. The article is perfectly clear without the editorializing preferred by Giano.Flyte35 (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I see, so the subject was a fat, over indulged, rich woman who dined off Hebrew gold platters, while ignoring her children in favour of dancing attention on her gay husband. Yes, I can see that would give the casual reader a far better impression of the subject. The MOS is indeed a marvellous thing. Giano (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

What? It's just about using neutral, factual language. Flyte35 (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

if you take the trouble to read the page you will see that without any explanation of historical context that is just the impression people would form. Which of course is just what some of her cousins and political opponents claimed. That would hardly be a balanced encyclopaedic article. Giano (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

As I already wrote, we can place things in historical context without editorializing. That's what I did in my edits to the piece. At any rate, the only change you're insisting on that has to do with historical context is in the section about children, where a perfectly neutral statement is just that while she and her husband were often absent from their children they "do not appear to have been very distant or remote figures in the earliest stages of their children's lives" given that Asquith "records how Rosebery loved to play and romp on the floor with the children." There's no need include opinions about what "should be remembered" or "seems revealing ." Flyte35 (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Flyte35: I have reverted this edit - as far as I can tell there isn't consensus for it. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you SagPhil, that comment is not "editoralizing" (is that even an accepted word), but important as it shows the wealth and splendour of the Rothschild's homes. I am reminded of Elizabeth Eastlake's famous quote about Hannah's principle home, Mentmore: "I do not believe that the Medici's were ever so lodged at the height of their glory." As the Medici collections are probably (think Uffizi) and Florence in general) the finest Royal assemblages in the World, I think that comment is quite justified. Giano (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Ugh, the comment you're now referring to, which I tried to remove, was "whether or not this was strictly true, the many Rothschild homes and their art collections, in England, Austria, France and Germany, certainly rivalled those of the crowned heads of Europe." That statement is an opinion. While certainly a standard and uncontroversial opinion, it is not a factual statement, and does not belong in an encyclopedia article. To include the Elizabeth Eastlake quotation would be valid, because it's a sourced statement of opinion. Indeed, that quote seems like a great replacement for the sentence I tried to remove.

And, yes, editorializing is a word. It is the present participle of editorialize, "to introduce opinion into the reporting of facts."

As I thought I'd already explained, neutrality is a core principle of Wikipedia and the article seems to have a great deal of unnecessary opinion statements can be easily removed without compromising the interesting, and very readable, nature of this article. I really don't understand why any of this is controversial.

Nevertheless, if these opinions in the article don't bother anyone else, I'll leave this article alone. This is far too silly, and too complicated--since it's a line-by-line thing--to take to dispute resolution. I'll let it go. Flyte35 (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140729132912/http://www.rothschildarchive.org/ta/ to https://www.rothschildarchive.org/ta/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140729132912/http://www.rothschildarchive.org/ta/ to https://www.rothschildarchive.org/ta/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)