Talk:David Rockefeller/Archive 1

Archive 1

Someone should start an article on his autobiography

His autobiography, Memoirs, is referenced several places, not only in this article, and I think it would be appropriate to have an article on the book. __meco (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone confirm this

Is this a good edit? __meco (talk) 23:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been wondering about that as well. I think that is a good edit based on the title of the cited ref: "Ongoing financial support of the Council on Foreign Relations...". Did the Council on Foreign Relations have a name change at some point? Graham87 08:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Quote from Baden-Baden 1991

It has been quoted on the actual page and on this discussion page:

We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. ... It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.

It is has been attributed to David Rockefeller at the Bilderberg meeting in Baden-Baden, Germany, June 6-9 1991. A google search of "David Rockefeller world 1991" gives numerous links. Many of them do not source the quote, and others allege that Rockefeller said those words to a Trilateral Commission meeting. Even the Wiki article attributes it to a Trilateral meeting, but offers no source. However, both the Bilderberg Group article and Bilderberg.org list a meeting as happening in Baden-Baden, Germany, 1991, with the latter source claiming Rockefeller to be in attendance. This quote has been used a lot in articles claiming to have found a "confession" concerning the New World Order and all that.

However, its authenticity is suspect. The Proud Internationalist, by Will Banyan and found easily on Google, offers some clarity on page 67:

The actual source of the quote appears to be a French publication, Lectures Francaises (July-August 1991), which reportedly obtained a copy of Rockefeller's address to the Bilderbergers. The key to its wider dissemination, though, was its partial reproduction in the Monaco-produced Hilaire Du Berrier Reports (September 1991).

He has more to say, but the important footnotes of his study are 408 and 409, found on the last page of the PDF. There are three sources that Banyan points to; first, he says that Des Griffin's Fourth Reich of the Rich identifies Lectures Francaises as the initial source on page 130; second, he points to William Jasper's article in The New American, European Nightmare, which also points to Lectures Francaises; and third, he asserts that Jim Tucker's Bilderberg Diary has nothing to say about Rockefeller's quote, even though there is a chapter on the Baden-Baden meeting. With all this in mind, I googled Lectures Francaises, and it turns out there is a French Wikipedia article [1]. I can't read French, but some of the words look familiar, such as "nostalgique du régime de Vichy," "nationaliste," and "tendance conspirationniste (antimaçonnisme, antisémitisme, etc.)" Nostalgic for the Vichy regime, nationalist, and a conspiratorial tendency, I think? Doesn't sound like a solid primary source for this quote.

I don't have Tucker's book or Griffin's book, so I can't source these things myself, but I figured it'd be worth mentioning here. This is actually my first attempt at actually participating on Wiki, so I didn't bother going straight to the main page. I figured someone with more experience could edit it, perhaps, or just put some note after the quote requiring a citation or even providing a bit of information about the disputed nature of this quote.

Skeptic2537 (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC) Skeptic2537 (talk) 01:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and edited the main page so people won't go assuming that this quote is 'proof' of anything. Skeptic2537 (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

We should perhaps bold the section or mention it is an unverified quote. A lot of people might read it without reading the "small print" afterwards and think it is a verified quote. I'm going to preface this one quote with (unverified quote) right before it for now. It seems like someone in the mainstream media would be interested in verifying this quote since it seems like such a key admission of Rockefellers agenda, but then again the media doesn't seem interested in talking about Trilateral that much.JettaMann (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this New York Times article available for free?

Is this New York Times article, cited in the David Rockefeller article, available for free? It was almost certainly published after 1986, and any NYT articles after this date are available for free. I couldn't find any article under the title "Joseph V. Reed appointed to UN", so what is the correct title? I don't have a paid NYT account. Graham87 09:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I have taken an educated guess and assumed it was Next U.N. Official From U.S.: Political Flair. That article is the only one that mentions Joseph V. Reed's appointment. Graham87 14:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems that I got the right article; I checked by manipulating the URL. Graham87 06:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"See also" section

The "See also" section appears to contain every article that mentions the name "Rockefeller", including tenants of the Rockefeller Center. Unless the target articles mention the subject they probably shouldn't be in the list. I'm going to start paring it down. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Statesman? Globalist?

These are listed as Mr. Rockafeller's occupations. Globalist is certainly totally out of place. What to say about statesman? Is there are job description for statesman that would fit his biography. This is starting to look like a vanity Wikipedia entry. Any votes for keeping Banker and nothing else in the first paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.122.82.247 (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The article has too many quotations already. I suggest adding it to Wikiquote instead. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

Are you telling me that David Rockefeller's Wikipedia entry doesn't have a controversy section? WFT? 204.112.156.246 21:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The anon comment above is correct and I see that it has not been rectified. This article reads as if it were written by the Rockefeller organization, and in that regard I note heavy editing by SPAs. I have asked for comment and would like to see more eyes trained on this article.--Mantanmoreland 21:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so worried about SPA. We are all equal here, whether we mostly read or we mostly write. Are the SPA causing a problem? The top part of the article looks fine. The bottom part looks very much like a list. Some article have sub-articles and a summary and a link. Consider this. I see no debate about whether the bottom part of the article is good or bad.Plumbing 03:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Rockefeller definitely seems to be a controversial figure. The lack of inclusion of a controversy section does seem to reflect poorly on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.219.173 (talk) 06:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering that Rockefeller has ADMITTED to being part of "a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States" in a quote on this very page, and in another quote (not on Wikipedia) he talks of the "supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers" who should be controlling the world.. I have no IDEA why there's no "controversy" section, to say the least..

A proven (former) friend of another member of the Rockefeller family said he was told before 9/11 that "an event would occur" which would lead to "going into Iraq, Iran, Brazil", and he was laughing at the idea of soldiers "looking in caves for something that doesn't exist". Again, I am dumbfounded by a lack of a "controversy" section.. 99.246.109.131 (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh shut up! I agree there should be a controversy section, but telling us some unverifiable information "a friend" heard is just the height or irresponsibility. Please keep your "facts" to yourself unless you can document them. JettaMann (talk) 16:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

'Considering that Rockefeller has ADMITTED to being part of "a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States" in a quote on this very page'

Rockefeller did not admit to any such thing. He acknowledged seeking a more integrated world, and made fun of his Right-wing critics by recalling their common description of a secret cabal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.37 (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The "former friend" is the very famous producer/filmaker/political candidate and now dead Aaron Russo. His statements regarding exactly that can be found easily, it was in a videotaped interview. Keep in mind this was not David who allegedly said this to him, but another Rockefeller. Also, why is Benajmin Fulford mentioned, but there is no link to the interview he did with David Rockefeller? Also, the wiki on Fulford is terribly lacking, as well as Dr. Nick Begich, brother of current Alaska (d) Gov of Anchorage and now running for Senate who has studied HAARP extensively. There is also a CBC investigative report on HAARP that is pretty revealing (desired 100 billion watts of power in an unrealesed but public document was dug up). I'm not really a wiki-literate person, maybe someone could put all this together. All easy to find, search for Haarp CBC on youtube or google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.201.106 (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Im shocked that there is no controversy. Btw what is SPA? Is it an American thing? Why dont we just add a controversy section? Honans (talk) 11:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The controversies are already mentioned at Rockefeller family. a SPA is a single-purpose account. Graham87 12:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed quotation

I have removed a quotation from the article. As it is, the article works well without it, the quotation is neither necessary nor does it add anything relevant to the article. This is partially due to the way it was integrated: no argument is derived from it. Apparently it is supposed to speak for itself, which in this case does not quite work, especially since there is no context provided and no discussion of what it actually says. Thus, the use of the quotation for the improvement at the moment is unclear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.215.33 (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Bilderberg Group

The "Bilderberg Group" has been described as "a secret world government".

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the light of publicity during those years. But now the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supra-national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries." (David Rockefeller, at a June 1991 Bilderberger meeting in Baden-Baden, Germany)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.196.106 (talk) 02:07, February 12, 2007 (UTC)

does anyone have any reliable source at all for the quote above? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.245.195.34 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect it is a bogus quote, although I have seen it thrown around a lot on the internet. Sometimes you just see the first part of the quote, the latter part about bankers and whatnot sounds even more far fetched. I tried to track it down to the primary source and was unable to. The websites that referenced the quotes were, shall we say, dubious. I would believe the quote more if something on the level of John Birch Society or above mentioned it, but they are pretty small time websites.JettaMann (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Another statement, in his 2002 autobiography, Memoirs, also expounds on his political means and strategies in the efforts to achieve a one-world, "New World Order" government:

For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it. (Page 405 of the 2002 hardcover edition)

I came across this in Michael Tsarion's 2006 lecture to the Granada Forum: 2012 - The Future of Mankind at Google Videos. __meco 17:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

And I now realize that this quote was part of the article long before I "discovered" it. __meco 09:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Jetta man do some damn research. the "friend" is Aaron Russo, and he went on to make a documentary "America:Freedom to Fascism" after he learned these things, and ended his friendship with Rockefeller —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.226.176 (talk) 12:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Why on Earth was the direct quote from Memoirs removed?

Seems like an attempt to totally diffuse the impact, and also the reference was removed. What could be more important and relevant than a printed, documented direct quote?

"For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." — From Rockefeller's "Memoirs", (p.405).

Patriotick (talk) 07:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You could have simply read above. Not to mention that it has a lack of notability as it's only relevant to silly conspiracy theories and was clearly somewhat self-deprecating. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

NWO, Socialism, etc.

Is the following serious?

David Rockefeller is probably the most ardent supporter of the New World Order. He was Vice Director of the Council on Foreign Relations (1949-1985), Vice President (1950-1970), and Chariman from (1970-1985), founder and Honorary Chairman of the Trilateral Commission as well as attending some of the secrative Bilderberg Group meetings.

I would suspect not (judging by our article at New World Order and New World Order (conspiracy), and so I have removed it. Meelar (talk) 00:52, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Obviously someone does not know the meaning of World Federalism...

Try a real encyclopaedia instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.61.125.28 (talk) 11:47, April 7, 2005 (UTC)

I actually came here specifically to see if the David Rockefeller article mentioned his active support of Mao in the 70s, and other socialist and NWO groups and people. --Mrcolj 18:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC) (Colin Jensen, not a loon, but a mellow San Franciscan apologist, nevertheless I don't know that a biography on David Rockefeller that doesn't mention extreme left-wing progressivist socialism is NPOV any more than a similar article on George Soros would be. In 2006, one hardly hears the name Rockefeller outside of references to fears of billionaire boys' club style conspiracies posited by everyone throughout the 1950s.)

Perhaps the charge of being part of an organisation called: 'New World Order' is untrue, but the rest of the groups mentioned he is a part of, and is well documented. He also agrees to the charge of wanting to "..build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will." Which comes from his book Memoirs and is quoted on this page. Kytok 04:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"I actually came here specifically to see if the David Rockefeller article mentioned his active support of Mao in the 70s,"

This statement is preposterous. At a time when Mao had been firmly ensconced in power for more than 2 decades the White House under Nixon began probing for opportunities to take advantage of the Sino-Soviet split and convert China into a Cold War ally against the USSR. Translating this as "active support of Mao" is simply ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.37 (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

"This statement is preposterous." No it is not. That is just some geopolitics mumbo jumbo to get around the moral issue. We supported the Taliban as a cold war ally and look where that got us. What's wrong is wrong. The world is not some "grand chessboard" for people like Z Big and Kissinger to play out their fantasies with people's lives like its some kind of game to be won. The threat from the Soviets was always overstated, we didn't need an ally that bad and rationalizing seems a bit of a stretch. Further, Rockefeller is not a politician but a businessman and would not have been engaging in "opportunities to take advantage of the Sino-Soviet split" but rather opportunities to pad his own wallet. Maybe Nelson, but not David. Sino-Soviet split? Go read some more Tom Clancy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.237.139 (talk) 16:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Why all the italics?

Many words in the article which are not titles of books or art are italicized. Is there a reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.109.15 (talk) 01:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

NPOV/grammar clean-ups required

Hi all. I've just begun taking out some subtle NPOV issues and cleaning up the grammar of this piece. I started with the entries on CFR, Bilderberg, etc. I know this is a 'controversial' entry, but come on, it's a bit ridiculous how poorly worded so much of this is, and also how every adjective seems to code Rockefeller's life with sinister intent! Also, this bio seems really long, is that just me? Thoughts everyone?Sailingfanblues (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, the prominent associates section is truly bizarre. Any individual with as much family history and wealth as Rockefeller would know lots of important individuals. I'm going to trim that down a bit. Sailingfanblues (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Clubs section

What is the point of the clubs section? It is not common in biographies and it seems to be not useful information. Many people are members of many clubs. I think this should be deleted. Sailingfanblues (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Also "Positions held/institutions founded during his lifetime" is too long. Any notable positions are mentioned in the text itself. I'm thinking it should be nixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailingfanblues (talk • contribs) 05:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

External Links

This is too long I think. And filled with unreliable sources. I cleared out the dead links to start. Thoughts about how to reorganize? Sailingfanblues (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work on this article. It needed an overhaul. As for organization, I tend to think that bios are usually best organized chronologically, at least as much as possible. Topical structures can get confusing, with earlier and later events mixed up, and it can often be difficult to decide where to add new material that doesn't fit neatly into an existing topic. But there are other views: do as you think best.   Will Beback  talk  23:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I spent some time today reading through the CT text "The Proud Internationalist" that I purged from the citations yesterday. This whole entry is essentially paraphrased from that document--truly shameful. This will be a lot of work. Sailingfanblues (talk) 04:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

$2.2 b??

kidding?? the guy is the head of the cause of most miseries in the world today, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.111.243.130 (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

No kidding. If he is a philanthropist then the US$ 2.2 billion is the amount that he will donate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.96.149.55 (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 16 November 2011

at occupation it says philanthropist. philanthropism is not an occupation i suggest this entry to be removed. unemployed might be closer to reality if the editor wants to replace it with something

Paralias (talk) 09:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No. Across wikipedia, philanthropist is an acceptable characterization of employment. Sailingfanblues (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

changing request listing to "answered = yes", as it has been answered. --Ella Plantagenet (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to post after the claim that David's 1936 thesis was on the topic of "Fabian Socialism". A semi-involved Googling session turned up nothing on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhess126 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 25 December 2011‎

With a bit of Googling I found a source. According to Amazon, chapter 8 of Rockefeller's "Memoirs" is entitled "A Dissertation, A Wife and a Job", so it's probably mentioned there too. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The Proud Internationalist source is CT bunk... published in Nexus Magazine, a forum dedicated to New World Order research. In any event, thanks for the work on this John of Reading, but perhaps for this moment we should just nix that whole line until a proper citation can be found. Sailingfanblues (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me. Perhaps Mhess126 (talk · contribs) can offer an opinion? -- John of Reading (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It's appropriate to remove that section. Not only was the "Proud Internationalist" source dubious at best, but the offered section of "Memoirs" is explicitly talking about "Unused Resources and Economic Waste", not the unsourced thesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.234.9 (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Conspiracy within a conspiracy?

The fact that there's no controversy or new world order section because the evidence is called a conspiracy makes me suspicious that there is an effort by Rockefeller to keep controversy out of his Wikipedia article. In effect, those who call the evidence in favor of Rockefeller being part of the NWO are conspiracy theorists for thinking he is not involved, despite evidence. If enough evidence if presented, will the section be created? --216.239.45.4 (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm someone who put a lot of effort into taking out all of this conspiracy theory nonsense in this page, and no, I have no relation to the Rockefeller family or whatever your accusing. Nonetheless, chances are that the material you'd like to link to would not pass muster with Wikipedia standards. Perhaps detail your proposed additions on the talk page? Sailingfanblues (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Rockefeller prick poisons everyone on earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.254.244.34 (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Kindly adhere to Wikipedia policy

I have removed a few posts here, which used unsupportable insults to refer to a living person. They were unacceptable even for an historical figure. Please remember this is not a site for claims about famous people for shock effect.Princetoniac (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2014

There are obviously some errors in the article. I am curently writing thesis on David. So can fix it with reliable sources such as For example it is nonsense that CFR did not want to include Japan. As it was Bilderberg group http://www.rockarch.org/collections/rockorgs/trilateral.pdf Theokit (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you please explain the edit that you would like to have done? The source that you propose does not appear to comply with WP:V. Coretheapple (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Holy Crap!!!! He turns 100 this week!!!!

Should we mention this in the article?Ericl (talk) 19:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is full of inaccuracies and bad sources

This whole article should be done over or seriously cleaned up. Look at some of the claims in this article. "Rockefeller also reportedly has connections to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) . As well as knowing Allen Dulles and his brother John Foster Dulles—who was an in-law of the family"

The source for that is some 1988 book by some conspiracy theorist crackpot called Perloff. Total disgrace to Wikipedia to let the Alex Jones cranks take this whole article over. 21:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:6F:8E63:E601:21E:C2FF:FEAC:D9E8 (talk)

Health

Has David Rockefeller ever had a heart transplant? I just saw an article about this. 173.89.236.187 (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Not one word on his multiple heart transplants in this story. In fact, he is world record holder for the number heart transplants, his latest being at the age of 101. It is indeed a shameful record to hold in a world in which young and promising lives are being lost while waiting for donors. If he was a conservative, I'm sure Wikipedia would be crucifying him over it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.35.123 (talk) 05:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Rockefeller. 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/20140311013611/http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/governance.html to http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/governance.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 10:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Tone and puffery

This article has serious tone issues and reads in part as if it was written as a private pamphlet put out by the family, interspersed with odd conspiracy-cruft (re the CIA), which I removed. The puffery is not new, so this is no reflection on any recent editing. Coretheapple (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

This article has two issues currently, as I see it. First, a perusal of the obits indicates that the article (apparently due to some long-ago COI editing) utterly omits anything even remotely negative. There are still traces of the promotional and peacock terminology that were inserted in this article some time ago, as well as excessive detail relating to his activities from a "gee whiz what a great banker" POV. Secondly, the CIA aspects are a conundrum. Apparently he and Chase have been linked to the CIA but it is not clear to me how much of that is reliably sourced vs. conspiracy cruft. Coretheapple (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

7 heart transplant

please add

David Rockefeller had undergone his seventh heart transplant at the age of 101 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.77.65.204 (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Declined. No reliable sources for that. WikiHannibal (talk) 14:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

pure bunk

the source of these rumors were from a satirical website however it is noteworthy that he lived til the age of 101. http://heavy.com/news/2017/03/did-david-rockefeller-have-seven-heart-transplants-rumor-hoax-truth-snopes-how-many/ 72.214.91.25 (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

It's interesting, though it doesn't rise to the level that it would be noted in this article. I'm focusing instead on going through the obits to see what of substance has been omitted in this article. Coretheapple (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Rockefeller. 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/20061215200114/http://www.nycp.org/bod.html to http://www.nycp.org/bod.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 11:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Rockefeller. 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/20080428223958/http://post.harvard.edu/alumninews/html/rockefeller.html to http://post.harvard.edu/alumninews/html/rockefeller.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 07:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Rumor of David Rockefeller having 7 heart transplants.

There is a still very popular rumor that David Rockefeller was so wealthy he could afford to pay for 7 heart transplants to continue living to 101 years old. YouTube has used an independent fact check and found this not to be true. They have also removed all videos that contained this false information.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=David+Rockefeller+had+6+heart+transplants

This is the link to Snopes determining that this was not a true fact.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/99-problems-all-heart-related/

I use the internet 10-16 hours a day, but after watching or reading the false videos and news articles maybe 10 years ago...I assumed this must be true until I took 10 minutes to scratch my head an decide maybe I should research this a little more, LOL!. There must be millions of people still out there (similar to me) that will continue unknowingly passing along and giving life to this false fake.

It would be nice to put this very popular virally spread false fact to it's final resting place on David Rockefeller's Wikipedia Page.

TonyDeMaria at Gmail 2601:2C0:8D82:8F30:88DC:2D4C:60C5:29E3 (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)