This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Robber baron (industrialist) was a
good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the
good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it,
please do; it may then be
renominated. Review: March 29, 2006. ( Reviewed version). |
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.
The term "allegedly" as it was used in the context was clearly employed to discredit the entire idea of industrial robber barons in American history and represented what appears to be a politically motivated point of view. Indeed the entire first paragraph read like a politically motivated attempt to descredit a concept that has been conventionally accepted in American history and vernacular. Given that there is a subsequent paragraph that presents the "other point of view," there is no reason not to provide an accurate description in the first paragraph of what the terms means, what it describes, and how it has been used in American history and culture.
I cleaned up the first paragraph and added more substantive information about what the term has been applied to. As it stood, many of the most exploitative practices were left out, in an apparent attempt to make the term seem ridiculous. Concomitantly, the paragraph that "defends" the robber barons against the term only discusses Rockefeller and similarly leaves out some of the more notorious and egregious figures who have been viewed as robber barons (like Fisk, Gould, Vanderbilt).
Even with my edits, this article still reads more like a contemporary right wing defense of capitalism, than an attempt to describe the business practices of the late 19th and early 20th century, along with describing the meaning and use of the term robber baron. I would say this article is very much not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.60.55.211 ( talk) 01:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
Merger of Industralist into Business Magnate now proposed. 203.198.237.30 03:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a source for the "minor fractions" of their wealth comment? I'd imagine some gave more than others. I also question the inclusion of the "common good". Perhaps adding a "perceived" to the sentence? -- 24.154.234.132 01:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
There are no references, and the article is not particularly comprehensive. Pointlessness 20:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
This article desperately needs concrete examples of the kind of brutish and/or illegal behavior which warranted this kind of label.
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)
Yeah, that statistic is at least out of place. If anybody wants to analyze "the american dream," a link to that article would be sufficient. I am removing it. If someone wants to restore it, find it's actual source, and add a counter example to balance it. Confounded bridge 16:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)confoundedbridge
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)
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)
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)
I do not think Henry Ford should be deleted from this list. I do not think the criterion for being a robber baron is strictly economics but also sociological. I think the negative sociological impacts Henry Ford's philosophical vies had with respect to ethnic populations and favoring some groups over others (because he had the economic clout to dictate these things) still affects the Detroit Area and the US auto industry today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpeach2 ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Business Week's Robert Kuttner thinks so.-- 177.19.67.101 ( talk) 14:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
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)
"Robber Baron" Is not a technical term applied by economic historians. It is a high octane heavily charged rhetorical POV term of hate and fear designed and used by opponents of the group. The Article therefore should cover the rhetorical dimensions. That's what makes the Stanford University case so interesting, on whether to use "Robber baron" as an official mascot. This Was not a trivial exercise, it was a serious presentation by concerned students, and concerned administrators. The name of of teams mascot is used many times in publicity, newspaper accounts broadcasting, and appears on banners and sweatshirts. The use of "Redskin" for another example is highly controversial and politically charged. One editor thinks it's all trivial what Stanford University does.... That totally misses the rhetorical dimension of the term. Outside of the rhetoric, there really isn't much to the term robber baron. Rjensen ( talk) 22:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
"WP:LEAD" is the term for the part of what is called the "WP:MOS" policy that is supposed to be what is called "read" and "followed" in wikipedia. Compare, and what, we may refer to as "contrast" with what may be stated as an "article" that people are revert warring to, and what the "policy" says we should, for the way, for want of a better term "lay out" the article and you may find that there is a "difference". GliderMaven ( talk) 17:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Rjensen, since GliderMaven is not really interested in substantive discussion, I direct some comments to you about the result of your recent edits. First, is it possible to rework the lead sentence to be about the concept "robber baron" rather than the phrase? (This would definitely work better with the first quote, which refers to an idea, not a phrase.) Second, your recent edits and additions have made the lead section really, really long, particularly relative to the body. May I suggest adding additional sectioning to keep the lead a relatively brief summary of what follows? (If it helps I can attempt some concrete suggestions, let me know.) Thanks. -- JBL ( talk) 14:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
This title don't make sense, it should be move into robber baron. Frenditor ( talk) 00:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
It was proposed in this section that multiple pages be
renamed and moved.
result: Links:
current log •
target log
This is template {{
subst:Requested move/end}} |
– 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)
The term combines the pejorative senses of criminal ("robber") and aristocrat ("barons" having no legitimate role in a republic).
This is stated several times, but the last claim is very ahistorical. It might or might not apply to the present American republic, but many republics on from Ancient Rome itself have not only had their own titles and aristocracies, but have actually been 'Aristocratic Republics'. It is quite normal, as well, that any non-monarchic state will be dominated by a precious few, and that they shall [ naturally enough ] pass on their hold over leadership to their own descendants ( including elective positions ) --- in the end being part of the oligarchy any republic needs to be stable.
Plus which: in monarchies aristocracies and nobles are usually the first to rebel against Kings. User:Claverhouse, 26 April, 2021
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Robber baron (industrialist) was a
good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the
good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it,
please do; it may then be
renominated. Review: March 29, 2006. ( Reviewed version). |
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.
The term "allegedly" as it was used in the context was clearly employed to discredit the entire idea of industrial robber barons in American history and represented what appears to be a politically motivated point of view. Indeed the entire first paragraph read like a politically motivated attempt to descredit a concept that has been conventionally accepted in American history and vernacular. Given that there is a subsequent paragraph that presents the "other point of view," there is no reason not to provide an accurate description in the first paragraph of what the terms means, what it describes, and how it has been used in American history and culture.
I cleaned up the first paragraph and added more substantive information about what the term has been applied to. As it stood, many of the most exploitative practices were left out, in an apparent attempt to make the term seem ridiculous. Concomitantly, the paragraph that "defends" the robber barons against the term only discusses Rockefeller and similarly leaves out some of the more notorious and egregious figures who have been viewed as robber barons (like Fisk, Gould, Vanderbilt).
Even with my edits, this article still reads more like a contemporary right wing defense of capitalism, than an attempt to describe the business practices of the late 19th and early 20th century, along with describing the meaning and use of the term robber baron. I would say this article is very much not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.60.55.211 ( talk) 01:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
Merger of Industralist into Business Magnate now proposed. 203.198.237.30 03:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a source for the "minor fractions" of their wealth comment? I'd imagine some gave more than others. I also question the inclusion of the "common good". Perhaps adding a "perceived" to the sentence? -- 24.154.234.132 01:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
There are no references, and the article is not particularly comprehensive. Pointlessness 20:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
This article desperately needs concrete examples of the kind of brutish and/or illegal behavior which warranted this kind of label.
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)
Yeah, that statistic is at least out of place. If anybody wants to analyze "the american dream," a link to that article would be sufficient. I am removing it. If someone wants to restore it, find it's actual source, and add a counter example to balance it. Confounded bridge 16:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)confoundedbridge
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)
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)
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)
I do not think Henry Ford should be deleted from this list. I do not think the criterion for being a robber baron is strictly economics but also sociological. I think the negative sociological impacts Henry Ford's philosophical vies had with respect to ethnic populations and favoring some groups over others (because he had the economic clout to dictate these things) still affects the Detroit Area and the US auto industry today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpeach2 ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Business Week's Robert Kuttner thinks so.-- 177.19.67.101 ( talk) 14:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
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)
"Robber Baron" Is not a technical term applied by economic historians. It is a high octane heavily charged rhetorical POV term of hate and fear designed and used by opponents of the group. The Article therefore should cover the rhetorical dimensions. That's what makes the Stanford University case so interesting, on whether to use "Robber baron" as an official mascot. This Was not a trivial exercise, it was a serious presentation by concerned students, and concerned administrators. The name of of teams mascot is used many times in publicity, newspaper accounts broadcasting, and appears on banners and sweatshirts. The use of "Redskin" for another example is highly controversial and politically charged. One editor thinks it's all trivial what Stanford University does.... That totally misses the rhetorical dimension of the term. Outside of the rhetoric, there really isn't much to the term robber baron. Rjensen ( talk) 22:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
"WP:LEAD" is the term for the part of what is called the "WP:MOS" policy that is supposed to be what is called "read" and "followed" in wikipedia. Compare, and what, we may refer to as "contrast" with what may be stated as an "article" that people are revert warring to, and what the "policy" says we should, for the way, for want of a better term "lay out" the article and you may find that there is a "difference". GliderMaven ( talk) 17:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Rjensen, since GliderMaven is not really interested in substantive discussion, I direct some comments to you about the result of your recent edits. First, is it possible to rework the lead sentence to be about the concept "robber baron" rather than the phrase? (This would definitely work better with the first quote, which refers to an idea, not a phrase.) Second, your recent edits and additions have made the lead section really, really long, particularly relative to the body. May I suggest adding additional sectioning to keep the lead a relatively brief summary of what follows? (If it helps I can attempt some concrete suggestions, let me know.) Thanks. -- JBL ( talk) 14:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
This title don't make sense, it should be move into robber baron. Frenditor ( talk) 00:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
It was proposed in this section that multiple pages be
renamed and moved.
result: Links:
current log •
target log
This is template {{
subst:Requested move/end}} |
– 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)
The term combines the pejorative senses of criminal ("robber") and aristocrat ("barons" having no legitimate role in a republic).
This is stated several times, but the last claim is very ahistorical. It might or might not apply to the present American republic, but many republics on from Ancient Rome itself have not only had their own titles and aristocracies, but have actually been 'Aristocratic Republics'. It is quite normal, as well, that any non-monarchic state will be dominated by a precious few, and that they shall [ naturally enough ] pass on their hold over leadership to their own descendants ( including elective positions ) --- in the end being part of the oligarchy any republic needs to be stable.
Plus which: in monarchies aristocracies and nobles are usually the first to rebel against Kings. User:Claverhouse, 26 April, 2021