Talk:Forbes family

'Maria' should be 'Marina': what else is sloppy here?

The story about Lee Harvey Oswald's wife is interesting enough to include (if it's true), but it does not inspire confidence that her name is incorrect in the article.

---

I have to agree. I'm no expert here as still new, but am unimpressed with the lack of verifiable references. Jalapama (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Partisan edits

Get Back world respect keeps deleting this paragraph:

From an interview with Mrs. Forbes Kerr on her 'pernicious' g.grandfather and his cousins, a band of 'opium dealers', reported here [1]: "The lecture happened next. Inside Mrs Forbes told the tail of her great grandfathers involvement in the China Trade. Ships would procure opium from Turkey and sell it in Canton Harbor for silver before meeting with China Customs. Forbes would amass tens of thousands of dollars collecting $5 commission on a chest of opium. In turn the ship would buy goods for silver since the Chinese needed nothing from the ships. Mrs Forbes Kerr alluded to the disgusting behavior of her great great grandfather. What foul business dealings are going on right now that will be considered gross abuse of humans in the future along with a collection of letters from a wife and a ruthless, selfagrandising, unscrupulous capitalist husband."

An anonymous who uses various IP-addresses to edit articles about Forbes family members tries to sneak in partisan terms like "disgusting" or information completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia like what relatives of someone allegedly once stored in their garage. Often the language is not only partisan but also bad, e.g. the grammar is flawed or sentences just do not make sense. Get-back-world-respect 18:38, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

I restored the version edited by one anon from a few days ago which incorporated a lot of good historical information. Another anon seems to think it went too far in de-emphasizing the Forbes connection to the opium trade. That anon is welcome edit the article, but should not simply revert the good edits of the other anon. older≠wiser 18:53, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

BKonrad makes a sensible general point to include work, but when it's so combined with vandalism/deletions, it's hard but to revert - and I don't agree that Forbes had minor opium impact on China during Opium War period, and I think that a single 'reputation' claim is not called for, especially when GETBACKWORLDRESPECT removed a negative 'reputation claim' by a Forbes relative no less about her nefarious opium smuggling ancestor. I compromised with 'noted captain' and 'brother Tom Forbes' and 'fur trader' though I don't know the source of that - perhaps someone should republish widely the Forbes family (business papers of the 19th century). Rgs, Anon1453 May 8

I don't have the time or patience to look into this much more right now. However, it is very well established that the Forbes family wealth is not based solely on profits made from the opium trade. I would very much like to see some attributions for saying "Forbes family became known in China during the Opium War in the 19th century as the 'Opium Dynasty' or 'Poppy Dynasty' and also by a poetic turn of phrase: 'The House of Forbes - Rests on Water - Dreams of Opium'"

I do not think the references to furs, teas and other goods should have been removed. Unless you can document that these were of no consequence to the Forbes business, I would be **extremely** surprised to learn that the Forbes solely traded in opium. As for the British ships and monopoly, this is the history that I am somewhat familiar with--unless you have evidence to the contrary, I think that should stay in as well in some form as I think that is a major part of how it was possible for Forbes to profit so handsomely in the trade. However, I agree that the removed statement that Forbes only "once brought in a shipload of Turkish opium" is a bit dubious.

I find your efforts to repeatedly insert the phrase opium dealer at every opportunity to be prima facie evidence of bias. As I have discussed elsewhere (I'm assuming it is with the same anon), the connotations of "dealer" are simply not applicable to Forbes. Trader, yes. And that is not to say it was a good thing, but it is just wrong to try to label him with a very loaded contemporary term. older≠wiser 20:44, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I think articles known to be targeted by biased edits should be nominated for Wikipedia:Articles only to be edited by logged in users cf. Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection. Get-back-world-respect 23:16, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Readers should be aware that Get-Back-world-respect, and to a lesser extent, Bkonrad, are shills for Kerry's campaign to clense his family name. The fact is that the Forbes ILLEGALLY smuggled opium into China, making historic (it is legitimate and accurate to say) windfall profits, with which they invested in greater Boston, Europe, etc. Any other commodities sold like furs, etc., had minor markups. OPIUM is the source of their money. BREAKING CHINESE LAW is the source of the mark-up. Like drug dealing families today that are shunned by law abiding Americans, and like networked Sicilian 'families', the FORBES (and related Cabot/Perkins/Russell families) ILLEGALLY SMUGGLED opium into CHINA, so much that they helped trigger a WAR called the OPIUM WAR to protect that trade for British and American merchants. HIDE IT all you want and TRY TO LOCK AWAY THE FORBES FAMILY history on a protected page, but their money is TAINTED. - Rgs, Anon1453

Yawn. And Kennedy ancestors were bootleggers. So what? What does that have to do with Kerry himself? RickK 03:17, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

"Reportedly, the Forbes family ties to the opium trade were quite significant, and thus the Forbes family became known in China during the Opium War in the 19th century as the 'Opium Dynasty' or 'Poppy Dynasty' and also by a poetic turn of phrase: 'The House of Forbes - Rests on Water - Dreams of Opium'." is not neutral. Where is a reference for these allegations? Before the same anon deleted some parts with the justification: "unsupported reputation claims and business intentions out". I did the same for the second time. Get-back-world-respect 21:46, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Bkonrad - as both of us wish to avert revert war, and as you're too quick to amend, I will neither revert nor appease, to use a trendy word. In fact, I'll review how items were previously posted, and revert or amend as necessary, but not today. My main items are: 1) opium history first - it's a fact 2) smuggling or illegal reference must be included, though I'll agree to put 2nd or 3rd and to use 'trader' or 'opium trade' in first instance 3) 'opium dynasty' references seem to have been accurate and acceptably contributed for months, so unless I see evidence they're wrong, I'll reinclude rather than whitewash. 4) tea and fur are O.K., but where is your reference? I assume they traded other goods, just as I assume these other goods had paltry profits compared to opium 5) they sold opium business to Russell & Co. so even if they immediately reinvested in other goods, that capital is still originated in previous or 'capitalized' opium trade. -Anon1453

Fair enough. Re: tea and fur--Forbes is not the only person who made a fortune trading furs in the 19th c. That's the initial basis of John Jacob Astor's wealth, and probably many others. I don't know that much about the tea trade, but it was an important commodity at that time--so I think you are incorrect to assume that opium was the primary basis for the Forbes' wealth. The opium trade was one component. I'm not sure what to make of the 'opium dynasty' references. Simply because no one noticed it for a long time, doesn't make it legitimate. I'd very much like to see some attributions for these quasi-quotes. older≠wiser 13:52, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Questionable

I think the whole article is kind of questionable. For one thing it goes back to AD 800 or so. When you go back that far everyone is related to everyone. Another is that the intent of the article seems to be to bash candidate John Kerry for his ancestors and relatives. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

---

I agree with your first three sentences, but disagree with your last. I thought it was a rather pompous article designed to make John Forbes Kerry look rather regal. After all, generally only kings and queens have pedigrees so detailed and ancient. Jalapama (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

John Forbes Kerry

One thing that I discovered when doing research on JFK is that though he is descended from the Forbes who was active in Florida he is not descended from the brothers in the Perkins family and rather from a cousin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.82.245 (talk) 03:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ancient genealogy?

What's with the Solvathius --> Christopher --> Christopher --> etc. ? Legends of Solvathius and Ochonchar can be found on-line, but Christopher???

Best will be to delete this, if no substantiation is provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.19.65.85 (talk) 09:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Baronets

Does this family have any relation to the Forbes baronets? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)