This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Delete substub if not expanded quickly --
Cyrius|
✎ 19:20, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)
Delete, although this is certainly a subject that should have an article. --
ΑλεξΣ 20:13, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to
Ida Tarbell. It's not an article about Standard Oil, it's an article about Ida Tarbell's book about Standard Oil. Anyone editor can always change it back whenever they have relevant content. I do believe I'm going to make it a redirect now myself. Note: entire content of this page was:
Consensus to keep.
DJ Clayworth 20:39, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Untitled
I noticed a discrepancy between this article and the
Standard Oil article. In the
Standard Oil article, it says Tarbell's work was published in 19 pieces, this article says 17.
Don't have time to do the research on it now, but figured I'd note it. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Masterfulninja (
talk •
contribs) 16:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)reply
According to
[1], it appears the correct number of parts is 19, so I went ahead and changed the article. -
MasterfulNinja —Preceding
undated comment added 16:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Sexualized example?
Why does the article state the book is a "sexualized" example? If nobody protests/sources this I'm removing from the article.
Codeofdusk (
talk) 18:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)reply
All fixed now. Graham87 01:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Ah, was going to edit here saying it was fixed, but you got to it before me! Thanks!
Codeofdusk (
talk) 03:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Delete substub if not expanded quickly --
Cyrius|
✎ 19:20, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)
Delete, although this is certainly a subject that should have an article. --
ΑλεξΣ 20:13, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to
Ida Tarbell. It's not an article about Standard Oil, it's an article about Ida Tarbell's book about Standard Oil. Anyone editor can always change it back whenever they have relevant content. I do believe I'm going to make it a redirect now myself. Note: entire content of this page was:
Consensus to keep.
DJ Clayworth 20:39, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Untitled
I noticed a discrepancy between this article and the
Standard Oil article. In the
Standard Oil article, it says Tarbell's work was published in 19 pieces, this article says 17.
Don't have time to do the research on it now, but figured I'd note it. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Masterfulninja (
talk •
contribs) 16:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)reply
According to
[1], it appears the correct number of parts is 19, so I went ahead and changed the article. -
MasterfulNinja —Preceding
undated comment added 16:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Sexualized example?
Why does the article state the book is a "sexualized" example? If nobody protests/sources this I'm removing from the article.
Codeofdusk (
talk) 18:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)reply
All fixed now. Graham87 01:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Ah, was going to edit here saying it was fixed, but you got to it before me! Thanks!
Codeofdusk (
talk) 03:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)reply