Talk:Robber baron (industrialist)

message: The use of the word "allegedly" is necessary to make it clear that some businessmen called "robber barons" did not, on examination, use tactics different from those who did not receive the label.
*I accept that "allegedly" could have been applied to others (on the specifics of your argument, so you're only a criminal if convicted?). However, the term does not work as a qualifier, because using it means that any application of the term was either unfounded or frivolous. IMHO using this term would be POV. My revision takes a "it was perceived" line. 203.198.237.30 08:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dummy section heading

message: There is substantial overlap between Business magnate, Entrepreneur, Industrialist and Robber baron (industrialist). Any thoughts on a possible merger, if not of articles, then at least of the redundant concepts and content which appears across these articles? Should one of these be the "main" article on the subject matter? I personally think "yes", but there does not seem to be a strong contender. There is businessperson (currently a mere substub), but the term lacks the connotations invoked by industrialist/magnate/mogul/tycoon etc. 203.198.237.30 03:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Term industrialist has nothing to do with Business Magnate. There's very little citation or backup proof to your claims.Danceking5 (talk) 07:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Business magnate, Entrepreneur, Industrialist...and others 

message: There are no references, and the article is not particularly comprehensive. Pointlessness 20:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delisted Good Article 

message: Does anybody have anymore information about the study of 303 executives? I can't find any source cited in Howard Zinn's book.
66.193.220.126 17:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1830s study 

message: He's mentioned in the article, but not in the list. And what about Mellon?
As mentioned below, what list?  If/When it comes back, might it include Jay Gould, "Big" Jim Fisk, Daniel Drew and Andrew Carnegie?  I agree on excluding Henry Ford, anti-Semite though he was.  At one point, did he not raise all of his employees' wages based on increased profits/decreased overhead on the Model T?  Put him on the "kook" list for having said "History is bunk," but leave him off the robber baron list, when there is one.
Terry J. Carter (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why isn't J.P. Morgan in the list? And Mellon? 

message: Someone should probably take this off once they've check it out, though I'm pretty certain it's a joke.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flankergeek (talk • contribs) 19:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who on earth is this Sidener guy? 

message: I can agree with every name on this list except Henry Ford.  When was Ford called a "Robber Baron?"  By whom?  In what context?  Ford was actually considered to be quite progressive during the era when the last of the Robber Barons reigned.  The Five-Dollar-Day was the epitome of progressive business-labor relations (even if the Sociological Department wasn't).  And when Ford did become a tight-fisted, public-be-damned, despicable tycoon calling him a "Robber Baron" would be passé.  Indeed, at the time that Ford was this way, Matthew Josephson was using the term to describe men that were by then dead a generation.  Wealth alone is not a criterion for inclusion on this list. 
I say Ford should be deleted from the list.  --RedJ 17 00:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is a complete misunderstanding of what the term means if you are including Ford.  Ford was anti-semitic...there is no doubt about that.  But in terms of his business practices both within his company and with the competition he was incredibly progressive (for a business man).  Most of the benefits of the labor movement were negotiated and agreed to first with Ford.  He contributed lots to the communities, charities and educational institutions all the time.  Robber Barron's were so described because of the way they bent both public and private institutions to their will and ruthlessly destroyed or swallowed the competition.  Was he influential and used his clout in the Detroit area to have influence.  Yes.  In comparison to say JP Morgan (who just swallowed up Bear Stearns today)...was he anywhere close in business practices and was he ever referred to back then as such.  No...there is no historical record or justification of that.--Thehighlndr (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: somebody tried to add Ford today without reading this page so I deleted Ford.Rjensen (talk) 05:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Henry Ford?

message: There doesn't appear to be a list of alleged robber barons on this page. Apparently it used to be a lot longer.What's up with that?74.61.22.248 (talk) 02:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: List?

message: Although Madoff was a criminal, he was not a robber baron. He did not live in the 19th century, nor did he create nor control any business monopolies. Does anyone have a counter argument to keep him on the list?
65.30.180.228 (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bernie Madoff

message: I think you guys should remove the brackets industrialist. The term industrialist just refers to a controlling person, like a director or officer of an industrial company. It actually has nothing to do with this smoke and mirrors stuff. It might sound like it does, because it sounds like "Capitalist", but it's essentially just a manager with stake.Danceking5 (talk) 07:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Idem. AdjectivesAreBad (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Brackets (Industrialist) 

message: Business Week's Robert Kuttner thinks so.--177.19.67.101 (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill Gates 

message: Reference 4 on the article is for some reason inacessible through Goggle Books (even though it's supposed to be free), so I found another website where the source can be viewed for free, but I don't know how to edit the article to properly include the website: http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.b000556457?urlappend=%3Bseq=1013 (p979)
If anyone can include this in the reference on the article, please do so.
Thank you, 27.99.9.171 (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  I Found an Accessible Reference [4] 

message: This title don't make sense, it should be move into robber baron. Frenditor (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If you believe the page should be moved, you should open a move request at WP:Requested moves. —  Music1201 talk 00:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: the American usage was copied from the medieval German usage but applies to an entirely different phenomenon. So two distinct articles are necessary. Rjensen (talk) 01:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: This is disappointing; the most nakedly partisan presentation I have seen on Wikipedia, and the first to motivate me to comment. Numerous arguments and statements are presented discrediting the notion of the very concept the page is ostensibly about - with not one presentation of any reason people ever found the idea creditable. Even if it was the case that robber barons never existed, and even more unlikely, that an overwhelming modern consensus even existed as to whether they were guilty of the charges leveled against them, this one-sided presentation gives no real insight to either the term or the concept if it is unwilling to present (precisely and in their own words, as has already been done for its critics) what those who believed in it, actually believed in, and how they argued for it, and what evidence they offered. Certainly, the monopolization of the American economy by the trusts is a critical and verifiable fact elided in this article, regardless of how one might wish to characterize the ethics of those who did it, serving to further the impression that the criticism of robber barons was utterly without merit, and rendering history more difficult to understand in the process. Please do not let politically interested folk erase competing views, and even the facts on which they depend.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.115.243.182 (talk) 06:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense--this complaint echoes the rhetoric of the 1930s. The article closely follows the reliable sources of today. For example long quotes from John Tipple and Steve Fraser explain what the rhetoric was all about. The historical reality of the concept was rejected 40+ years ago. Rjensen (talk) 10:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This is why I checked the talk page, too. I was really surprised by the tone of the article, which seemed to me largely (if subtly) dedicated to explaining that it was all just a misunderstanding. It’s not that the criticism of the term and its application doesn’t belong here, but I was like ... where is the rest of this article? A good example of the tone is the use of qualifiers like "hostile" when there are a references to someone alleging that someone else was a robber baron. That colors it with illegitimacy; does one need to be ‘hostile’ to accuse a business magnate of immoral acts?2601:182:CE00:D75C:8B6:3DDF:428D:D816 (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Systematically, relentlessly unbalanced presentation 

message: This edit adds an editorial comment to the lead section.  Original versions were uncited, this version is cited to Brittanica, which is better than nothing.  If you compare the Brittanica article to this one, you will notice that their comment about philanthropy is a minor mention in the body, placed in an appropriate context.  The proposed edit is none of these things.  I would not object to a mention similar to Brittanica's, integrated into the body in a sensible way.  --JBL (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The philanthropy section needs work.  An excellent place to start is a new collection of research papers by scholars:   also look at Harvey, Charles, et al. "Andrew Carnegie and the foundations of contemporary entrepreneurial philanthropy." Business History 53.3 (2011): 425-450.  which is online here and has a good bibliography.  Rjensen (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philanthropy 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
----
* :Robber baron (industrialist) → 
* :Robber baron → ?
– More common usage of the term but hatnotes in each article direct people to the other pages. -  || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 02:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The above comment by  was made before this request was transferred from another talk page. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 06:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: This request has been transferred from Talk:Robber baron to fix its malformity. Robber baron titles a page with content and so it must also be dispositioned. If this request is granted, then Robber baron may be deleted or moved to Robber baron (disambiguation) and tagged with  in accordance with WP:ONEOTHER. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 06:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 29 March 2021