Talk:William Rockefeller Jr.

message: I find this statement offensive: "con artist" William Avery Rockefeller Sr. Because it is rewriting history. William Rockefeller Sr was a "botanic physician" and sold elixirs. Just because it's not mainstream medicine doesn't mean you can just say the guy's a fraud. So long as he didn't make it known to be western medicine - and he didn't, hence it was called "elixirs" and not "medication" 182.255.99.214 (talk) 06:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't really "rewriting history" when he was in fact known for conning others. See Ron Chernow's biography Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. for more. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "con artist" William Avery Rockefeller Sr. 

message: In response to your tag, I noticed a claim in the article that clearly deserved to be included in the lede  -  promptly reverted by ButtonwoodTree.
If you wanted to question the claim (whether or not referenced), you should have either queried, corrected or deleted that item in the main article. The lede is simply meant to summarise what is in the article.
Re demonstrating why it’s essential for the lede, the case for additions (or deletions) is purely on grounds of notability, which is a matter of judgment. The suggestion that the Rockefellers may have been a bit sly in their dealings is a valid point to make, to balance the official bedtime-story of virtuous endeavour. It is certainly more significant than ‘He was a prominent member of the Rockefeller family’, which goes without saying, since he is important enough to merit a wiki page, and has already been classified as a family member. Valetude (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re proposed new lede 31/7/20 

message: There seems to be some confusion between William Avery Rockefeller Jr., and his son, William Goodsell Rockefeller. I believe the portrait photo on this article - alleged to be of William Avery Rockefeller Jr. - is instead of William Goodsell Rockefeller. The source of the photograph (Library of Congress: https://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/ggbain/item/2014683849/) ambiguously lists the subject as "Wm. Rockefeller" and lists the year of the photograph as 1910, if I am not mistaken. This would put the elder Rockefeller at around 69 years of age at the time the photo was taken, and the younger Rockefeller at around 40. To my eye, the man in the photo certainly looks closer to 40 than to 69, particularly when compared to a photo of the elder Rockefeller taken only ~5 years later c. 1915 (Library of Congress: https://www.loc.gov/resource/cph.3b03800/).
I haven't found any source to confirm my suspicions and I am not familiar with the rules and etiquette of editing Wikipedia articles, but I figured the second linked image could be used on this article while the first linked image could be used on William Goodsell Rockefeller's article. 2600:1700:3FC3:4C50:7D5F:F59E:2D92:EF98 (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the linked photo does give a year of 1910, and I wish the first link was clearer on which William was intended. It never crossed my mind how that could be his son before you suggested this, but I'll look further into photos before making any changes. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect portrait photo?