Talk:Rockefeller family

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). Family and relationships (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Family and relationships, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Family and relationshipsWikipedia:WikiProject Family and relationshipsTemplate:WikiProject Family and relationshipsFamily and relationships

"The members of the Rockefeller family are noted for their philanthropy simultaneously with their genocidal and eugenic philosophies, which is inherently an irreconcilable contradiction; a Rockefeller Archive Center study in 2004 documents an incomplete list of 72 major institutions that the family has created and/or endowed up to the present day, though using money created with the fractional reserve banking system, which manufactures it from thin air, forcing the rest of society to pay with inflation. These organizations have served as the fronts through which the Rockefellers have operated their philosophy of depopulation (read: murder) and population genetics ideals."

"The family is also known for its long association with and financial interest in the Chase Manhattan Bank, now JP Morgan Chase. The family also has also been involved in multiple treasonous acts in order to push forward the New World Order agenda. The family's fortune is estimated to be between $130 billion and $13 trillion dollars, enough to buy half the world's countries and enough to buy off politicians, bankers, and corporations in order to push forward the family's fascist agenda."

From the first part of the article.

I agree, there are certainly neutrality concerns. This article feels like a thinly veiled celebration of the Rockefeller's achievements, rather than an objective encyclopaedic article. I have included a POV tag at the top of the article to reflect the ongoing neutrality issues. Please discuss the issue here, or amend the article accordingly, rather than simply removing the tag.

206.132.97.4 (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are definitely right: this article reads like one big propaganda piece about those noble Rockefellers. Half of the article is just a big list of donations. I suppose when one is so rich you have media-manipulators on staff 24 hours a daySelena1981 (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was redirected to this article from the discussion page of David Rockefeller whilst searching for criticism. I am flabberghasted that no criticism whatsoever exists. --91.248.98.199 (talk) 08:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The name is not French Origin, it is German. It came from Rockenfeld, Germany and the name originated as Rockenfeller. It was then changed to Rockefeller when Johann Peter Rockenfeller Jr. came to the U.S. He was born in Segendorf, Westerwald, Germany, on March 22, 1711, and died in about 1787 in Hunterdon County, New Jersey. He had 9 children. How do I know all of this, my last name is Rockefeller and I have whole family tree dating back to Germany in the origination in Rockenfeld, Germany. So trust me, it is not a French name.

I already referenced Scheiffarth, Engelbert. "Der New Yorker Gouverneur Nelson A. Rockefeller und die Rockenfeller im Neuwieder Raum." Genealogisches Jahrbuch, vol. 9, 1969, pp. 16-41, which states that the paragraph starting with

However, it is sometimes stated that the Rockefeller surname originated from the Roquefeuille,...

is wrong, more details below. If there is no reliable source given I would suggest to remove the paragraph.

Furthermore I would like to know whether the statement

Johann Peter immigrated to New Jersey from the German Palatinate in 1723

is sourced anywhere. --Dagox (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the following paragraphs as no citations were given and they at least partially contradict with the sources given

However, it is sometimes stated that the Rockefeller surname originated from the Roquefeuille, from the 
region of Limousin,   France. If true, that may explain why they were located in the 
Midwest, where most of the French immigrants settled. This New France, which consisted of 15 states 
north of Louisiana, was home to more than 150,000 [citation needed] Frenchmen and women in 1803 
when Louisiana was sold to the USA. In France, the version Roquefeuille is also known as a family name. 
Back in the 16th century, some French nobles were Protestant and fled the absolutist Catholic regime 
to go to Germany. They dispersed throughout the German kingdoms and Switzerland. This is generally the 
favored version of historians to explain the ultimate roots of the Rockefeller name.[citation needed] 
The name may also come from the "Roquefeuil", a Catholic family from the region of Languedoc (France).[citation needed]  

The earliest known ancestor is Goddart Rockenfeller (1590, Fahr).[1] 
The Rockefeller family is descended from Johann Peter Rockenfeller (1682–1763), grandson of Goddart, 
and Johann Thiel Rockenfeller (1695–1796), great-grandson of Goddart. Johann Peter immigrated to 
New Jersey from the German Palatinate in 1723 and acquired large landholdings.

--Dagox (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTX4P3jH0q4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.143.46.249 (talk) 10:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As already said, German origin. The family name derives from the former settlement of Rockenfeld near Neuwied. Nowadays Rockenfeld is an abandoned village https://books.google.de/books?id=n57UCwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=de#v=onepage&q&f=false - - the meaning is "Roggenfeld" = German, the cereal plant "Roggen" Rye + "Feld" field (agriculture). See: coat of arms https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockenfeld --2003:E8:5BC9:4E64:BC57:EBC9:B5C9:499E (talk) 06:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason Nicholas Rockefeller is not on this list? (As if we didn't know) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.254.124.38 (talk) 11:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw Aaron Russo talk about him in an interview and came here to see who the guy was, why isn't he here? I mean, he does exist, doesn't he? --Piotr Mitas (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Council on Foreign Relations Membership List, R, for Rockefeller. His name is there, officially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.212.244 (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly does this first sentence mean? "The Rockefeller family, founded by John D. Rockefeller (1839-1937)..."

He was not the first Rockefeller, and how exactly do you "found" a family? This seems to be a nonsensical sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.151.209 (talk) 03:05, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the sentence give the impression of a company foundation.(cantikadam (talk) 11:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

No mention of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=2ZO&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=robber+baron+rockefellers&spell=1

Another hit on Wikipedias credibility. Sounds like the Rockefellers are donating to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ergn (talk • contribs) 22:25, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to rectify this bias by adding a Criticism section User:Aequitas12345 —Preceding comment was added at 17:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no real assertion of WP:N on this page outside of being a member of the family. Ought to be redirected here instead of deleted, but I wanted to let it be discussed before I WP:Be Bold. -Jcbarr 22:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I would have to disagree. Because John D. Rockefeller V is the direct descendant and namesake of John D. Rockefeller, people will want to know who the descending John D. Rockefellers are. If John D. Rockefeller V has a son John D. Rockefeller VI, he too would receive an article because of his name. --Caponer 20:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The family page does not currently contain any individual biographical information, but rather serves the purpose of directing people to individual pages they might want to look at. I would support deleting JDR5 before I'd support merging it, but I agree with Caponer that he's notable enough just because of his name (it's what brought me here). --BlueMoonlet 03:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After consulting the other Wiki language versions of this page that, I felt the list of Rockefeller family members was best displayed in the order of each Rockefeller's birth, followed by their children in birth order as well. I felt an alphabetical list of Rockerfellers was not very family-oriented and that the purpose of this page was to highlight how each Rockerfeller was related to one another. --Caponer 00:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. Nicely done. --BlueMoonlet 03:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rockenfeld was first mentioned in 1280 as Rukenvelt, meaning a field on the top of a ridge (between Rhine Valley and Westerwald). The settlement Rockenfeld was abandoned after the last inhabitant had died in 1995. The buildings were completely destroyed, only exception is a memorial for the dead of the second World War.

Goddard Rockenfeller (*1682 in Wied (now Altwied), †1763 in Rocktown, NJ) was the first Rockenfeller immigrating to America. He had six children with his first wife Anna Maria (*1684,†1719). In 1723 he, his second wife Elizabeth Christina (since 1720) and five of his children left their home and settled in Hunterdon County, NJ.

From my perspective this may be an information of interest. In the last version before I added this, there was a wrong explanation given for the ethymology of the family name. If there are no objections, I'd like to insert this again.--Dagox 11:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a general-interest encyclopedia; this is detail better suited for a genealogical site. It should be sufficient to note the name's connection to the German town and the person who brought the name to the US. Wikipedia is not a genealogical directory (official policy), and this is not the only page or article that goes into excessive detail. The important part of the article would be the history of how John D., William, and Frank established a business empire that made them notable and provided the opportunity for notability to their descendants. --Dhartung | Talk 22:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this detail is not of interest here.--Dagox 14:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm questioning both origin stories -- obviously the Rockenfeld locals would like to promote their version, but there are numerous claims for the Roggenfelder origin and a particular descent from one Johann Roggenfelder. A better citation will be necessary, and perhaps an NPOV treatment of the competing claims. --Dhartung | Talk 22:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see a debate about this question: The variant Roggenfelder is mainly promoted in mirror pages of wiki's old version. It may be a false reconstruction of the original german name or an unusual variant of Rockenfeller, since no standart orthography for names was introduced in 1723.

The facts: Rockenfeller is a name frequently used in Germany, well localized in the district where Rockenfeld lies. In contrast, the name Roggenfelder is very rare in Germany - the 2003 telephone book shows 9 entries all over Germany - but the name is only found close to Rockenfeld [1]. In the Rockefeller Family Genealogy Forum [2], there are members that can reconstruct thier pedigree to Johann Peter Rockenfeller, e. g. [3]. In the whole forum no entry can be found relating to the name Roggenfelder. There's no hint that any of the american Rockefellers has an ancestor with the name Roggenfelder or to put it in another way: Johann Roggenfelder is the same person as Johann (Peter?) Rockenfeller in an unusual or wrong spelling.

Sources: The web page I linked claim to rely on The Transactions of the Rockefeller Family Association. The Rockefeller Archive [4] recommends among others Henry Rockefeller's Rockefeller Genealogy (available at [5]). Unfortunately I have no access to the books, so I couldn't check it. --Dagox 14:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at [6]. There you can reconstruct the Rockefeller genealogy from John D. up to Goddard in 1590. A reliable source is Scheiffarth, Engelbert. "Der New Yorker Gouverneur Nelson A. Rockefeller und die Rockenfeller im Neuwieder Raum." Genealogisches Jahrbuch, vol. 9, 1969, pp. 16-41. --Dagox 18:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are good points. An A9 search indicates that the Roggenfelder claim dates at least back to an H. L. Mencken book in 1936, attributed to Stephen Kekulé von Stradonitz (presumably a relative of the chemist), and it is widely propagated on Rockefeller-conspiracy web pages, so we should address it somehow. --Dhartung | Talk 19:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Scheiffarth, Engelbert. "Der New Yorker Gouverneur Nelson A. Rockefeller und die Rockenfeller im Neuwieder Raum." Genealogisches Jahrbuch, vol. 9, 1969, pp. 16-41, the oldest known documents about the Rockefeller family are the parish registers of the Neuwied region. They were documented by Philipp Rockenfeller (†1916 in WW I). Scheiffarth gave copies of the documents in 1963 to the Gouvernor Nelson A. Rockefeller. The spelling in the registers is most often Rockenfeller, sometimes Rockefeller or Rockenfelder.

The documents reach back to the Thirty Years' War, since older registers were destroyed during this period. Two of the genealogic tables are related to the american Rockefellers. I give a summary with the important persons:--Dagox 15:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I. Johannes (*ca. 1634, †2.8.1684 in Niederbieber). Second marriage 
   with Elisabeth Margaretha Remagen from Segendorf in 1678
   9. Johann Peter I. (*1682 in Rengsdorf). Married 
      Anna Maria Remagen from Segendorf (*1684, †1720) in 1717 in Niederbieber. 
      Second marriage in 1720 with Elisabeth Christine Runkel from Bonefeld. 
      They move in 1723 to Ringoes, NJ.
      2. Johann Peter II. (*22.3.1711 in Niederbieber), son of Anna Maria Remagen.
         (*) William (*1750). Married in 1772 at Germantown Christina Rockefeller (=II.2.4.4.(*), see below).
             (*) Godfrey (*24.9.1783). Married to Lucy Avery (family of english origin).
                 1. William Avery (*1810, †1906). Married to Eliza Davison (*1813, †1889). 
                    He was looking for noble descent and a servile genealogist "found" his pedigree back 
                    to the french family de Roquefeullie, who had had to flee France since they were 
                    huguenots. The legend says they had changed the french name to Rockenfeller when 
                    they had moved to Neuwied, altough the name of Rockenfeld is well documented long before.
                    2. John Davison.
II. Johann Wilhelm (*ca. 1628 in Ehlscheid, †24.7.1702 in Rengsdorf).
    2. Anton (or Tönges) (*ca. 1658, †18.7.1707 in Rengsdorf), married in 1685 in Rengsdorf Gertrud Pauli.
       4. Johann Thiel (Theil) (*1695 in Ehlscheid). Married to Anna Gertrud Alsdorf from Bonefeld.
          4. Johann Simon (15.1.1730 in Ehlscheid, †1795). Married to Anna Bähr. Moved in 1735 to Germantown, NY.
             (*) Christina.

"The six-generation dynasty of John D. Rockefeller is undoubtedly the greatest philanthropic family in the United States, after Andrew Carnegie initiated the concept of major philanthropy in the 1880s. Its historical underpinnings are credited to John D.'s devout Christian mother Eliza Davison (1813-1889), who instilled in him the regular practice of tithing, which he began in 1855 when he started his first job as an assistant bookkeeper.[2]"

Not exactly neutral there, "undoubtedly the greatest", most money given to the best causes? Way off topic towards the end.
So I've changed it to "The Rockefeller family are noted for their philanthropy". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.4.223.79 (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

There is a very unusual form of genealogical fraud that appears to be in action here. I have removed a group of children from the list of descendents of William Rockefeller, to wit a purported descendent "Sarah Elizabeth Rose b 1958" and her three children. It appears that no such connection exists. Go here to see the list of the real descendents that James Stillman Rockefeller had. Wjhonson 02:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

moc.eivomtsiegtiez.www There is no mentioning in this article how they kept there money tree growing. For example we now this from I.G Farben company but not from the 'o so rich' Rockefeller family. Kind a strange isnt it?. Some history insights about this might be wise to make public. As it has a lot todo with some people's freedom.

Much is lacking in criticism of this dominant capitalist family

As of Thurs, Dec 6th 4am, this article has two lines...two lines of critcism!!! Ludlow massacre etc...I shan't go on. Please add to this, as criticism sections are always very much important in adding other standpoints to any article. Let's get more than just "great philanthropy" up here please...possible whitewashing?

A proper Criticism section would be very welcome; delphic references to other Wikipedia articles (all that we had) are embarrassingly bad substitutes. Henry^Flower 16:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that better? Aequitas12345 12:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Zinn anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.127.25 (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know in U.S.A. there is no dynasty exists or am I wrong? I would ttry to be sarcastic but it is painfully explicit anyhow.(cantikadam (talk) 11:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

Yes, you are wrong. A 'dynasty' does not specifically refer to nobility, but to any prominent family (i asume that is the part that was unclear to you). Such a family might be notably rich or notably famous as entertainers or politicians or some such Selena1981 (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The family was also the fourth richest family in history.[citation needed]"

I fail to understand how it is possible to measure a family's wealth, since a family is not a discrete entity. While Rockafeller's status as the wealthiest (inflation adjusted) man in history is arguable, I don't even believe this measure to be possible...and if it is, it certainly needs a citation. CelestialRender (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it worth mention about the con artist from West Germany who claimed to be a descendant of Rockefeller? JustN5:12 (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i have added to the criticism section. Alas, over half of the content was deleted. will others please add to the section? its the smallest out of all of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.245.99 (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the phrase "with jewish roots" (sic) from the first sentence. In addition to being unsubstantiated (no citation), it is a well-known Anti-semitic falsehood--not that were the Rockefellers Jewish it would impugn the Jews, but that supposedly the Rockefellers' "secret Jewishness" explains their business success, on the premise of a cabal. The Rockefeller family is Protestant, and there is no evidence that their ancestors were Jewish, secretly or otherwise. I removed the sentence rather than discussed it because (a) it is inflammatory, and (b) it is not an element of serious discussion. [Not signed]

It is well known in all the World that they are JEWS, just go in Rockefeller center in NYC and you can find out by the way how those who maintain the center dress, 90 % of them are Jews with Jewish hats. And there should be no reason why Jews hide their identity. Their time is coming anyway... —unsigned comment added by 89.248.194.212 (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and your point is? 78.49.118.251 (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is silly. Everybody knows that Rockefeller are Jews. Just like David Letterman is. As a coincidence, have you every thought of why many successful persons in finance or media has german names? Explanation: Lots of Jews originate from Germany, just read about Ashkenazi Jews and Khazar Jews and you will see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.231.215.180 (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a. You removed the phrase... but in the article "Ethnicity" still says Jewish.

b. So it is unsubstantiated? Besides the "Jewish hats" are there any serious quotes of Jewish ties?

c. Could you please identify yourself? The antisemitic responder although calling to kill me (your time is coming anyway) is correct that you should sign your name.

d. Just a short response to 89.248.194.212's remark: Streptomicyn, rubber, Insulin, zip files, atomic power (civil use), list goes on a few pages. The Talmud says at the end of days all hatred will evaporate. Until then, many Jews - of all beliefs but probably with roots to their ancient extra-biblical religion, do a lot to make the world a better place for everyone. And a few, just like all other nations, do a lot to make it worse. BTW Autosigned, why are YOU hiding? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 13:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, see this to sum it up: A Genealogy book by Stern compiling famous Jewish people and families in America, listed the WIFE (Helen Gratz) of a COUSIN (Godfrey) to the Rockefeller brothers. Their children were raised in the Episcopalian church. Samuel Andrews may have been the descendant of an assimilated Mordecai Andrews 6 generations previously, whose daughter Ann (Hanna) converted and married the son of a Christian priest). פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's all pretty weird. The Rockefellers and others get blamed for a lot of nonsense just like the Jews do and so some people will think they're all one and the same. It's so silly. They're fine and mostly harmless people whom many Americans more or less worship because they're so wealthy and "secretive" and... well that's just so mystical! So there's this deep impression of a mystique and conviction they must be "hiding something" just like the Jews are always "doing hidden things". I don't know if I'm putting it quite right but that's close enough. DinDraithou (talk) 02:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John D. Rockefeller: Jew Or Not Jew? Verdict: Not a Jew. http://www.jewornotjew.com/profile.jsp?ID=710 2003:E8:5BC9:4E64:BC57:EBC9:B5C9:499E (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The big list of family members might benefit from the use of Template:familytree, and being trimmed down to notable members. — Hex (❝?!❞) 03:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This had been deleted, but I don't see that it is out of place. What do others think?

- Mate if this has been deleted, then they probably wouldn't want us to know. Why would this particular part get deleted? For sport? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.49.21.94 (talk) 08:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some opponents of the the New World Order have seen the Rockerfeller wealth and influence as key components of a conspiracy to bring about One world government. One of these was Cong. Larry McDonald, conservative Democratic Representative to Congress from the 7th District of Georgia. Along with 268 other passengers, McDonald was aboard Korean Air Lines Flight 007 when it was shot down by the Soviets off of Sakhalin Island on Sept. 1, 1983. He was the only sitting congressman reportedly killed by the Soviets during the Cold War and his death further fueled opposition to New World Order.

"The drive of the Rockefeller family and their allies is to create a one-world government, combining super-capitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control ... Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent."[18][19]

Here are my problems. One, you tried to add the exact same information to New World Order Conspiracy Theory article. (Which was also promptly reverted by a different editor) Two, you have COI issues since you are related to the congressman someone that died in the plane crash. Three, you show absolutely no connection between the Rockefeller family and that plane crash. Your only tenuous connection is McDonald mentioning the Rockefellers and the new world order. Four, it is UNDUE weight to mention one congressman's opinion of the Rockefellers in relation to the New World Order. If you can find other reliable sources, then maybe it can be added as a section. But campaigning to include that plane crash and Congressman McDonald in as many articles as possible is not good editing. Angryapathy (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Angryapathy. --Loremaster (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding United Nations 12 Goals Agenda (=real name of the New World Order Agenda):

Rockefeller Foundation asserts that "The key to financing and achieving the SDGs lies in mobilizing a greater share of the $200+ trillion in annual private capital investment flows toward development efforts, and philanthropy has a critical role to play in catalyzing this shift. Source: Wikipedia

So when you ask yourself how could anyone bribe all politicans of the world, ask how many of them can you bribe with 200 trillion A YEAR. This pays from the all femme new ghostbusters propaganda, pollution, over development, massive inmmigration invasion, and anything you feel is out of place or overamplified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.141.235.189 (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Beginning with Rockefeller Senior, the family has been a major force in land conservation"

This has to be highly debatable. And where's the evidence? --Ceiteag Bheag (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way the spouses are currently shown makes no sense at all. Many of them are disconnected from who they are supposed to have married, so we can't even figure it out. The spouses should be merged into the main descent trail to make it clear who each person married.Wjhonson (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...The family, with its far reaching philanthropy, as well as its oil, real estate, banking, and international institutions, remains a benchmark for extreme wealth ("as rich as Rockefeller"), as "Senior" is still regarded as the wealthiest man who has ever lived, worth over $300 billion in today's figures, easily surpassing Bill Gates, in terms adjusted by inflation indexing.[25]..."

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The information in the Family Archives section is out of date and not entirely correct. Here's a suggestion for an updated description:

The Rockefeller family archives are held at the Rockefeller Archive Center, located in the former home of Martha Baird Rockefeller in Sleepy Hollow, New York. The Archive Center was originally established in 1974 as a part of Rockefeller University, but in 2008, it became an independent operating foundation. At present, the archives of John D. Rockefeller, Sr., William Rockefeller, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Abby Aldrich Rockefeller, Abby Rockefeller Mauzé, John D. Rockefeller III, Blanchette Rockefeller, and Nelson Rockefeller are processed and open by appointment to readers in the Archive Center’s reading room. Processed portions of the papers of Laurance Rockefeller are also open. In addition, the Archive Center has a microfilm copy of the Winthrop Rockefeller papers, the originals of which are held at the University of Arkansas, Little Rock. The papers of the family office, known as the Office of the Messrs. Rockefeller, are also open for research, although those portions that relate to living family members are closed. Mbrhill (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this section needs an update! The Rockefeller Archives Center is an independent institution, so I'm going to create a separate page for that (removing material from this article as necessary) and then pare down this Family Archives section using some of these suggestions. Perimeander (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should change the name of the article to "A list of members of the Rockefeller family and all the wonderful things they donated money to". The article has no substance, no history, no real information at all other than a list of family members and the stuff they donated money to. A little criticism wouldn't go amiss. Anyone who held on to a fortune of hundreds of millions during the Great Depression can't be that great... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.5.35 (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whys is this section titled "The Edifice Complex?" There is no content or reference explaining the use of this term. It seems like a POV label. I propose that the section be re-named "Real estate development." --Crunch (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do the names in bold mean on the descendant section? There is no key to explain why they are special. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the Rockefellers could endow a scholar to write this article, and employ another to edit it. This might avoid such textual horrors as, 'a vast three-story underground bunker built below the Martha Baird Rockefeller Hillcrest mansion'.

1. 'Vast'? In whose estimation, 'vast'? Is it ten square miles in area? One square mile? Fifty-five?

2. 'three-story'? So this bunker is a trilogy? Or some other kind of literary work? Perhaps you mean 'storey'.

3. 'underground bunker'? Bunkers are by definition located underground, or partly below-ground. It is like saying 'This house has an attic in the roof'.

4. If the structure is below ground, it cannot have 'storeys', but it might have 'levels'. A great many institutions, like government departments and large public libraries, have multi-level basements where books and other documents are stored in a stable and controlled-climate environment.

5. The word 'bunker' has pejorative, even sinister overtones; there are connotations of 'hideout' or 'fortress'; such words imply that the Rockefeller 'bunker' protects secret and/or compromising material, or that the family plans to hole up there when the US Second Civil War (Historians will call it 'The Second Amendment War') breaks out. The world knows that Hitler spent his last days on earth cowering in a bunker deep below Berlin. The word retains that unpleasant odour of death and madness.

6. So... why not say that the Martha Baird Rockefeller Hillcrest 'mansion' (what is a 'mansion' anyway? There are pejorative overtones here, too. 'Mansion' is a word used by some persons to describe a dwelling they believe to be larger than its occupants deserve and/or need) has a three-level basement where the Rockefeller family papers are stored. 121.44.162.10 (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know that this family has its own secret service which is researching everything about UFO.

For example, they are spending billions of dollars just for travelling across the world to research everything about crop circles.

Somebody could add this information with proper source into the article. I'm sure it will be useful.

Cheers!

213.59.138.235 (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rockefeller family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060831045048/http://www.carnegie.org:80/sub/awardees/rockefellers.html to http://www.carnegie.org/sub/awardees/rockefellers.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The list of family members was excessive, see WP:NOTGENEALOGY. I have pruned it in a bold edit. I used the following guidelines:

1. Delete names of all non-notable (i.e. unlinked) living (or presumed-living) people. This is supported by Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of names. I have kept the names of spouses of notable people.
2. Delete family branches that have no notable descendents.
3. Delete ancestors before the parents of notable people.

I have added the numbers of children, where known, to indicate that names have been deleted.

I am happy to discuss this; please put any objections or comments here. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTGENEALOGY actually applies to biography articles, and says Less well known people may be mentioned within other articles. Since this is a family page, mentioning extended members without articles is actually more appropriate here than at something like Nelson Rockefeller or William Rockefeller. For individual biographies, I would typically feel it's best to just mention those with own articles aside from parents, siblings, spouses, and children. I personally am more worried about the sourcing (or lack thereof) for members in here. As for privacy, the BLP policy says The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced. If for example people publicly announce births of children or marriages, then there really are no privacy concerns. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I take your points. I was initially concerned with the presence of unsourced names of living people, and most of the names I have removed are in this category. However, when we remove the names of unsoured and unnotable living people the remaining lists of unnotable dead people (such as the children of Edith Rockefeller) look out of place. Also, even if we had sources, there seems little point in including the names of remote descendants. Should we include Peter Parmalee Bens just because his great-grandmother was Alta Rockefeller (whose notabilty is itself questionable)? This article is on the family, but it should focus on its notable members and their relationships and exclude their remote descendants. This is an encyclopedia, not the Almanach de Gotha.

As a compromise I suggest retaining the names of the children of notable people, if they have died or are adequately sourced. We could also restore the ancestors of notable people but I see little point in these. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is essentially a summary of the articles on the notable members of the Rockerfeller family. Therefore it is reasonable to limit the names to a superset of the names that would be be expected to be included in those articles: that is the parents, spouses and possibly the children of the notable family members. With this family this is sufficient for all the notable family members to be connected in a family tree. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I observe that someone has plastered a lot of who-remarks in conjunction with Junior while it above is clearly stated that John D. Rockefeller Jr. below will be referred to as Junior. --J. P. Fagerback (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a paragraph at the bottom of the Real Estate section that smacks of conspiracy theories and seems to have been hidden there. The paragraph in question is:

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation is a book by American writer, Frederick William Engdahl. In his book, Engdahl explains how the (oil-rich) Rockefeller family is planing to control world farming by the Green Revolution plan. Rockefeller family is trying to finish other family farms in the United States and also is trying do same as this plan to other countries and finally take the whole world food security on their hands.[20] Engdahl believes that green revolution is happening by the new world empire. He also sees the Rockefeller family hand behind the great Genetically modified organism (GMO) project to control world population.[21]

I'm not a regular user of Wikipedia but this doesn't belong here... it's nonsense and probably self-promotion. I deleted the paragraph.

I removed "Dudley–Winthrop family" and "Stover family" from the infobox, because they are not mentioned in the body of the article. 'Winthtop' is mentioned, but this appears to be a forename. Annabellracer has reverted my edit, without an edit summary. Please explain why these family names should be included here. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Annabellracer: you have re-reverted my revert of your addition of Robert Clyde Rockefeller and his R.C. Rockefeller Entertainment company. My edit summary was:

• remove Robert Clyde Rockerfeller, no clear evidence of notability for him or his company, IMDb listing and Instragram account checked: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm10010694/ https://www.instagram.com/robrockefeller/?hl=en

You re-reverted without giving your reasons in an edit summary. This was discourteous, and gives us no indication of your reasoning. My analysis was:

• There are no Wikipedia pages for Robert Clyde Rockefeller or for R.C. Rockefeller Entertainment.
• No other Wikipedia pages link to the missing Robert Clyde Rockefeller and R.C. Rockefeller Entertainment articles, except for the Rockefeller (disambiguation) page
• The IMDb page for Robert Clyde Rockefeller[7] only lists producing credits for three unreleased films. IMDb is usually not a reliable source, but if he had credits for released films it would probably list them.
• My Google searches has not revealed any other reasons to think that he or his company is noteworthy.
• Your source for R.C. Rockefeller Entertainment[8] does not mention the company, moreover the source is dated 1906-1978 but you say that Robert Clyde Rockefeller was born in 1974.
• The description "the only remaining Rockefeller that has the strongest bloodline directly to the original Rockefeller family in Rhineland Germany" appears questionable. Why is his bloodline stronger than the other descendants of John Davison Rockefeller Sr? There is no indication that his parents or grandparents had Rockefeller-Rockefeller marriages. Even if true, this is not in itself noteworthy.

Please justify your addition of this content. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of a response I have deleted the content again. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Annabellracer (talk) 07:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC) Sorry for the delay Verbcatcher. I’m in graduate school. There are 177 living heirs to the Rockefeller family currently not listed. Also, the Stover family, as in Russle Stover, is also missing as a linked family with the Rockefeller family. As I research Robert, his father being a Rockefeller and his mother being a Stover, I will site my resources. I’m new here, and all of this work is part of my PhD. I should have sited Ancestry.com, but I have 177 Rockefeller family members to add, and research. And yes, they are all living heirs. Annabellracer (talk) 07:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Annabellracer: Wikipedia content should be based on citations of reliable sources, but this in insufficient. All content must also be noteworthy. Please do not add more names to the list unless these people are themselves noteworthy. Please see the #Pruning genealogical tables section above and the WP:NOTGENEALOGY policy, which says that names should only be included 'where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic.' This includes everyone who has a Wikipedia article, or who clearly merits an article, their parents and their spouses, and possibly their non-living children. We might be able to stretch a point here for people of marginal notability, but being in the bloodline is insufficient. Similarly, we should only mention connected families if the families are notable enough to realistically merit an article.

There is a presumption against including names of non-notable living people, for privacy reasons, see WP:LPNAME. Some Rockerfeller descendants may want to maintain their anonymity (and avoid begging letters).

Robert Clyde Rockefeller might be sufficiently notable if he had produced films that had had a widespread theatrical release, but his IMDb page does not indicate this. If you are doing doctoral research on him then I hope for your sake that he is notable, but you would need to establish this by citing sources that establish his notability, not simply his ancestry.

Are you referring to Russell Stover, the founder of Russell Stover Candies? If you can reliably establish a link with the main Rockerfeller family then please add it to the Russell Stover article, and probably also to this article.

Please continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Feel free to ask for help or advice at my user talk page or at Wikipedia:Teahouse. Regards, Verbcatcher (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting this thread to resolve a dispute which has arisen regarding my inclusion of an image of John D. Rockefeller in the page's infobox. SNUGGUMS opposes using the picture for this page's infobox on the grounds that it may "potentially mislead readers into thinking nobody else from the family mattered." While it is not my intent to characterize other members of the family as insignificant, I believe it is fair to say that none of the future generations of the Rockefeller family would have exercised as much power and influence as they did were it not for the fortune that John D. Rockefeller amassed in the oil industry.

As for the possibility that visitors may get the impression that there were no other family members who had an impact on history, I would recommend interspersing pictures throughout the article of other Rockefellers who were famous. That way no visitors would wrongly get the impression that John D. Rockefeller was the only member of the family of any historical significance. Emiya1980 (talk) 05:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly fine with having multiple images of family members throughout the page. In fact, if there are any joint photos (e.g. portraits of a family taken together), then that would also be a good choice to add. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John D Rockefeller was not Vice President It was Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller under Gerald Ford. 174.247.251.112 (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to the encyclical of Aekansas the governor of Arkansas was Winthrop Rockefeller the 4th son of John d rockefeller 174.247.251.112 (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]