This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I removed a garbled sentence and fixed a couple other things. Needs a bit more work. Paul 19:30, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This sentence was completely incorrect:
I changed it to ...
but experts may know better. -- mervyn 12:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
THere is a guy(taxonomist) with a similar name who wrote about biological classification— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wk muriithi ( talk • contribs) 12:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
It says in this article that "After being forced out of the Erie Railroad, Gould gained control of the Union Pacific Railroad, withdrawing from it in 1883 after realizing a large profit. " However, in the Union Pacific Railroad article under "Company Officers," he is listed as being president in 1892.
What's up with that? There should be some consistency, so the facts/sources should be checked. -- Jimbo 23 January 2006
This child appears in the timeline but not in the list of children. Can someone please figure out which one is right? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
This is not going into the article without a citation of someone attributing it to Gould. Gazpacho 03:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I, for one, am satisfied that the quote is now attributed to unionists. When I made my comment above there was no attribution.blah blh blah It wouldn't be the only time Gould put business over human lives; Klein quotes a letter in which he notes the benefits of annihilating the Indians. However, I do not remember seeing the strikebreaking quote in Klein. Gazpacho 03:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Found the quote in an academic textbook, The American Past: A Survey of American History, by searching with Google Scholar, but I'm not sure if this is sufficient. Meticulo ( talk) 10:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
No offence to all the hard working people, but this wikipedia page sucks! (and for that matter, so does the rest of the internet, or at least google) I found this link on the robber baron wiki page [2] so we can make this page better. I was helping my 9th grade cousin and this page was quite disappointing Evil Deep Blue 20:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is a phrase from the most recent revision of the page: "Anti-semitism, in connection with Gould's name, motivated some of this hostility, even though he was born a Presbyterian and married an Episcopalian." This sentence could have two meanings: Gould was rumored to be Jewish and that motivated some of the hostility towards him OR Gould was rumored to be anti-semitic yet was a Presbyterian and married an Episcopalian. I first went with the 2nd interpretation and only recognized the first after I asked a friend for their take; because it would be very odd if you could counter any claims of you being an anti-Semite with a claim that you're a Presbyterian. Someone may want to clear this up. I would, but I know absolutely nothing about this person so I feel I would be unjustified in making any revisions.-- 152.2.62.27 12:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
The family name was originally Gold, the immigrant ancestor was Nathan Gold but he was an English Protestant. The family which arrived in the mid 1600s changed the spelling in the early 1700s. This was before any large German Jewish influx among whom Gold as a surname is more often found. RichardBond ( talk) 21:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
There is an article about Gouldsboro, PA claiming the city was named for Mr. Jay Gould the financier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.86.228 ( talk) 16:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The "Marriage" section says that Jay Gould had six children and lists them. The "Jay Gould" Box that includes date of birth, death, names of children, etc. does not include one child, Howard Gould. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.189.224.244 ( talk) 00:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
These are unreferenced or already in the lede: In an era without government regulation, in which private New York bankers led by J.P. Morgan and Co. extended their control over a growing share of US industry in an ultimately-unsuccessful attempt to reduce rampant destructive competition, the New York City press could be less than flattering to Gould, who bought up control over corporations, looted their assets, and sold them before the damage became known. [1]
For example, some New York newspaper accounts alleged that Gould's dealings in the tanning business drove his partner Charles Leupp to suicide. But Leupp had episodes of mania and depression that psychiatrists would now recognize as indications of bipolar disorder, which his family thought could have caused his death (citation needed). Gould was often suspected of being Jewish due to his name and business acumen, and was often depicted in anti-semitic caricatures, even though he was born a Presbyterian and married an Episcopalian (citation needed).
Contemporary efforts to rescue Gould's reputation and contemporary interest in Gould are spurred by conflicts in analyses of the post-1975 rise of speculative, destructive financial capital in many prominent national economies, and the 2007-present economic crisis and its temporary resolution in public-financed bailouts for failed firms and spectacular compensation for their top managers, deepening moral hazard and public debt, and further reducing the role of productive capital in the economic mix. [2]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk • contribs) 20:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
We own a couple of books that were once in his library; I believe his full name was: "Jay Elliot Gould"; am I not correct? 207.151.38.178 ( talk) 00:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Jay Gould's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "drury":
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I've added 'some' to the words '...modern historians...' in the introduction. This is to avoid implying that current historians have arrived at a consensus which overturns earlier portrayals. Meticulo ( talk) 00:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The link referenced in Note 2 points to a page that no longer exists. I tried to Google for the page to see if it had a changed URL and couldn't find anything. -- sydbarrett74 ( talk) 03:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jay Gould. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Jay Gould - Bain News Service.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 27, 2018. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-05-27. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich ( talk) 08:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Gould is widely regarded as one of the great villains of his era.
[1]
[2]
[3]
Who inserted this statement and falsely claimed it was supported by these references? In the specified pages, the first reference (Borneman) says:
Certainly... Gould hardly deserved to be singled out as "the supreme villain of his era". One might question Gould's movements, one might be envious of his successes, but on a one-to-one basis, even his adversaries admired his forthrightness. "I know there are many people who do not like him," his rival and occasional partner Collis P. Huntington remaked, but "I will say that I always found that he would do just as he agreed to do."
Similarly, the head of a commission investigating the affairs of the Union Pacific Railroad was obliged to admit, "I have always found, even to the most trivial detail, that Mr. Gould lived up to the whole nature of his obligations. Of course, he was always reticent and careful about what he promised, but that promise was invariably fulfilled."
In the specified pages, the second reference (Klein) says:
The new journalism burst onto the scene at the time when Gould's own position was undergoing major changes... These changes accentuated the already wide gap between the Gould of fact and the Gould of legend, between his current role in the business world and the leper's bell of his reputation, which the press had done so much to create and popularize. By 1887 Gould's public image had undergone nearly two decades of embellishment, and the imperatives of the new journalism offered every motive to perpetuate rather than correct it. Gould as responsible businessman made for dull copy compared with the dark, satanic figure who manipulated an enormousempire in furtive, mysterious ways. Newspapers locked in mortal combat for readers were loath to exchange the possibilities inherent in the popular image of Gould for the bland portrait of a business executive.
Page numbers have not been specified for the third reference. 207.216.153.13 ( talk) 07:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
References
I remember reading that the particular tanning related activity Gould engaged in was building and financing the process of turning wood byproduct into potash. In areas where there was lumbering there would be bark and branch wood residue. This could be burned so as to produce wood ash which was used in tanning. This product was collected from a large number of small processing operators and delivered to the tanners. This is how the young Jay Gould became involved with Zadoc Pratt. RichardBond ( talk) 21:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Didn’t he shoot himself? 2600:100E:B050:AA29:4D21:EC50:BCD2:DE90 ( talk) 02:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I removed a garbled sentence and fixed a couple other things. Needs a bit more work. Paul 19:30, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This sentence was completely incorrect:
I changed it to ...
but experts may know better. -- mervyn 12:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
THere is a guy(taxonomist) with a similar name who wrote about biological classification— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wk muriithi ( talk • contribs) 12:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
It says in this article that "After being forced out of the Erie Railroad, Gould gained control of the Union Pacific Railroad, withdrawing from it in 1883 after realizing a large profit. " However, in the Union Pacific Railroad article under "Company Officers," he is listed as being president in 1892.
What's up with that? There should be some consistency, so the facts/sources should be checked. -- Jimbo 23 January 2006
This child appears in the timeline but not in the list of children. Can someone please figure out which one is right? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
This is not going into the article without a citation of someone attributing it to Gould. Gazpacho 03:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I, for one, am satisfied that the quote is now attributed to unionists. When I made my comment above there was no attribution.blah blh blah It wouldn't be the only time Gould put business over human lives; Klein quotes a letter in which he notes the benefits of annihilating the Indians. However, I do not remember seeing the strikebreaking quote in Klein. Gazpacho 03:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Found the quote in an academic textbook, The American Past: A Survey of American History, by searching with Google Scholar, but I'm not sure if this is sufficient. Meticulo ( talk) 10:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
No offence to all the hard working people, but this wikipedia page sucks! (and for that matter, so does the rest of the internet, or at least google) I found this link on the robber baron wiki page [2] so we can make this page better. I was helping my 9th grade cousin and this page was quite disappointing Evil Deep Blue 20:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is a phrase from the most recent revision of the page: "Anti-semitism, in connection with Gould's name, motivated some of this hostility, even though he was born a Presbyterian and married an Episcopalian." This sentence could have two meanings: Gould was rumored to be Jewish and that motivated some of the hostility towards him OR Gould was rumored to be anti-semitic yet was a Presbyterian and married an Episcopalian. I first went with the 2nd interpretation and only recognized the first after I asked a friend for their take; because it would be very odd if you could counter any claims of you being an anti-Semite with a claim that you're a Presbyterian. Someone may want to clear this up. I would, but I know absolutely nothing about this person so I feel I would be unjustified in making any revisions.-- 152.2.62.27 12:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
The family name was originally Gold, the immigrant ancestor was Nathan Gold but he was an English Protestant. The family which arrived in the mid 1600s changed the spelling in the early 1700s. This was before any large German Jewish influx among whom Gold as a surname is more often found. RichardBond ( talk) 21:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
There is an article about Gouldsboro, PA claiming the city was named for Mr. Jay Gould the financier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.86.228 ( talk) 16:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The "Marriage" section says that Jay Gould had six children and lists them. The "Jay Gould" Box that includes date of birth, death, names of children, etc. does not include one child, Howard Gould. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.189.224.244 ( talk) 00:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
These are unreferenced or already in the lede: In an era without government regulation, in which private New York bankers led by J.P. Morgan and Co. extended their control over a growing share of US industry in an ultimately-unsuccessful attempt to reduce rampant destructive competition, the New York City press could be less than flattering to Gould, who bought up control over corporations, looted their assets, and sold them before the damage became known. [1]
For example, some New York newspaper accounts alleged that Gould's dealings in the tanning business drove his partner Charles Leupp to suicide. But Leupp had episodes of mania and depression that psychiatrists would now recognize as indications of bipolar disorder, which his family thought could have caused his death (citation needed). Gould was often suspected of being Jewish due to his name and business acumen, and was often depicted in anti-semitic caricatures, even though he was born a Presbyterian and married an Episcopalian (citation needed).
Contemporary efforts to rescue Gould's reputation and contemporary interest in Gould are spurred by conflicts in analyses of the post-1975 rise of speculative, destructive financial capital in many prominent national economies, and the 2007-present economic crisis and its temporary resolution in public-financed bailouts for failed firms and spectacular compensation for their top managers, deepening moral hazard and public debt, and further reducing the role of productive capital in the economic mix. [2]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk • contribs) 20:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
We own a couple of books that were once in his library; I believe his full name was: "Jay Elliot Gould"; am I not correct? 207.151.38.178 ( talk) 00:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Jay Gould's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "drury":
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I've added 'some' to the words '...modern historians...' in the introduction. This is to avoid implying that current historians have arrived at a consensus which overturns earlier portrayals. Meticulo ( talk) 00:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The link referenced in Note 2 points to a page that no longer exists. I tried to Google for the page to see if it had a changed URL and couldn't find anything. -- sydbarrett74 ( talk) 03:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jay Gould. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Jay Gould - Bain News Service.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 27, 2018. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-05-27. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich ( talk) 08:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Gould is widely regarded as one of the great villains of his era.
[1]
[2]
[3]
Who inserted this statement and falsely claimed it was supported by these references? In the specified pages, the first reference (Borneman) says:
Certainly... Gould hardly deserved to be singled out as "the supreme villain of his era". One might question Gould's movements, one might be envious of his successes, but on a one-to-one basis, even his adversaries admired his forthrightness. "I know there are many people who do not like him," his rival and occasional partner Collis P. Huntington remaked, but "I will say that I always found that he would do just as he agreed to do."
Similarly, the head of a commission investigating the affairs of the Union Pacific Railroad was obliged to admit, "I have always found, even to the most trivial detail, that Mr. Gould lived up to the whole nature of his obligations. Of course, he was always reticent and careful about what he promised, but that promise was invariably fulfilled."
In the specified pages, the second reference (Klein) says:
The new journalism burst onto the scene at the time when Gould's own position was undergoing major changes... These changes accentuated the already wide gap between the Gould of fact and the Gould of legend, between his current role in the business world and the leper's bell of his reputation, which the press had done so much to create and popularize. By 1887 Gould's public image had undergone nearly two decades of embellishment, and the imperatives of the new journalism offered every motive to perpetuate rather than correct it. Gould as responsible businessman made for dull copy compared with the dark, satanic figure who manipulated an enormousempire in furtive, mysterious ways. Newspapers locked in mortal combat for readers were loath to exchange the possibilities inherent in the popular image of Gould for the bland portrait of a business executive.
Page numbers have not been specified for the third reference. 207.216.153.13 ( talk) 07:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
References
I remember reading that the particular tanning related activity Gould engaged in was building and financing the process of turning wood byproduct into potash. In areas where there was lumbering there would be bark and branch wood residue. This could be burned so as to produce wood ash which was used in tanning. This product was collected from a large number of small processing operators and delivered to the tanners. This is how the young Jay Gould became involved with Zadoc Pratt. RichardBond ( talk) 21:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Didn’t he shoot himself? 2600:100E:B050:AA29:4D21:EC50:BCD2:DE90 ( talk) 02:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC)