Talk:John D. Rockefeller

awards

+++I'm interested to know of any awards John D. Rockefeller Sr. received, either during his life or posthumously. Please include on this page if you know of any. If you can provide a link to further related content. Thanks.

Why no mention of the Federal Reserve System?

I couldn't help but notice, throughout the article...there is no mention of his role at the meeting on Jekyll Island and the creation of The Federal Reserve System. Of course there is nonstop mention that he was a philanthropist....he gave away dimes while stealing the entire gold supply of the United States. What a kind & generous man Mr. Rockefeller was! Goldwings 20:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

oooh come on, be serious! JDR stole US gold supply? any proof or is this zeitgeist kind of nonsense?

Source please?

"Rockefeller strongly believed since he was a child that his purpose in life was to make as much money as possible, and then use it wisely to improve the lot of mankind."

Yes we clearly see that in events like the Ludlow massacre or how the miners were treated like cattle? yes,Honestly... Maybe he did good things, I dont know, Im just wondering wich he valued most.. money or helping people. Considering his "good deeds" appear to come only as consequences. Also the statement in itself has no source, and just appears to be a POV claim.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.141.89.53 (talk) 13:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

200 Billion?

The Swedish version of Wikipedia says that he (in today's worth) owned 200 Billion Dollar , and therfore making hime the richest of all time! Is it true?

maybe--it is conceptually very difficult to compare wealth across long periods of time.

Rjensen 20:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• • There is an old article on the BBC News website that says " In 1910 Mr Rockefeller's net worth was equal to nearly 2.5% of the whole US economy, the equivalent of nearly $250bn in today's terms, or at least twice as much as Bill Gates " BBC News

DAMN he was one rich *** mofo...

Note that Sweden uses the European system, where one US billion is a milliard and as such, a Swedish billion is a US trillion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.191.22.133 (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Also note, according to this website, Rockefeller had a adjusted net worth of $318 billion. This makes him (arguably) the richest person to ever live (He is in dispute with several Pharaohs, Chinese Emperors, and Mesopotamian Rulers whose wealth is either unknown or unable to be calculated) [1]98.182.55.73 (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

US 5 Billion?

That's confusing. Is it 5 billion on current money or 5 billion in the money of 1937? If the latter, how much would it be in today's money (and why would it obviously be less than $900 of 1901 money)?

--- Its 5 billion in todays money, after it was adjusted to inflation Wakita 16:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The article linked to on the page says $200b. Just $5b, compared to Gates's $51b, wouldn't make him so wealthy. -Calamari 19:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Rockefeller controlled much more of the (far smaller) US economy in his day than Gates does today. Besides the dominance in oil, Rockefellers controilled major Wall Street banks. Gates controls Microsoft, but not much else. Gates seems to be copying the Rockefeller philanthropy model ,however Rjensen 00:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This should be made very clear in the article. It says he had 1.4 billion dollars. At a growth of 2.5% interest (which is kinda close for the last 40 years), that puts his wealth at 1.4*1.025^68 = 7.5 billion. The $5 billion figure comes from using 1.02 which I think is less accurate. To get it to be worth $200b would require using 7.5% interest. Has america's GDP grown by this much? The numbers need to be made clear

I don't get this comment. What does this $5B / $7.5B calculation suppposed to add to the article, or what, exactly, is it supposed to reference?--DocGov 06:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

How rich is rich: the key point, and the one that attracted all the attention in 1900-1930, is JDR's $$$ in relation to the size of the US economy. The economy was MUCH smaller then, so JDR controlled a much larger proportion than Walton or Gates today. Adjusting for inflation is not especially relevant in terms of how much of America he controlled. Rjensen 18:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the source of Rockefeller's notoriety. The version you keep changing, however, makes two, distinct points; the first is the absolute level of wealth, which is only meaningfully related in real (i.e., inflation adjusted) dollars; the second is the proportion of national wealth. Both of these points are made in the prior rendering:

Adjusted for inflation, Rockefeller's net worth over the last decades of his life would easily place him among the very wealthiest persons in history. As a percentage of the United States economy, no other American fortune, not Bill Gates' or Sam Walton's, would even come close.

Neither of these two points can be considered more "key" (unless one is trying to introduce a POV) so why not simply include them both? Next, you keep introducing two other points: his "control" of large banks, and "no personal control" over operations after 1897. Neither of these are "Legacy" issues. They belong in the description of his life in earlier periods, where they already appear:

By 1896, Rockefeller had shed most of his day-to-day involvement in the affairs of Standard Oil, though he retained his title as president until 1911. By then, he also had significant interests in banking, shipping, mining, and other industries.

So repeating them in the "Legacy" section is both redundant and out of place (not to mention incorrect--can you name one of the "largest" banks that he "controlled" either in terms of majority holdings or operating management?). Your final comment that "He just collected dividends and watches the stocks soar in value" is ungrammatical and gratuitous; it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.--DocGov 21:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right and so I tried to fix article accordingly, adding some actual numbers. Rjensen 21:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

My objection wasn't about the precision relating to the second point, it was about distinct content of the first. Once again, you eliminate the point of his being among the richest in absolute terms, and simply provide numbers supporting the point of highest proportion of national wealth. How does this help the article? Why won't you simply leave both points intact as simple facts?--DocGov 23:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The article says that his wealth in 1902 was $200 million out of $101 billion and eventually reached $900 million; so I assume it reached that before the total size of the US economy grew much. Since he was worth $1.4 billion by the time of his death, I assume his control of the economy had dwindled. So, when did he have that $900 million?--80.186.59.177 18:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Rockefeller Centre?

How come this article doesn't mention the Rockefeller centre in New York? because it was named after him and was not named by him.

he had little to do with it,. It's named after the family. Rjensen 08:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It's Center, not Centre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.31.106.34 (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

rail connection

What is the connection between JDR and the rail industry - see "Categories"?

Syd1435 00:27, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

Standard Oil was the rail industry's most important single customer and it's manipulation of the rebate system was one of the most significant of its controversial business practices. Wincoote 13:15, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bibliography

there are important scholarly studies that Wiki readers can use for further research. I have included some of the better ones--none are especially controversial.

• Chernow, Ron. Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. New York: Random House, 1998. ISBN 0679438084.
• Folsom, Jr., Burton W. The Myth of the Robber Barons, Young America. (1996)
• Hidy, Ralph W. and Muriel E. Hidy. Pioneering in Big Business, 1882-1911: History of Standard Oil Company (New Jersey) (1955), the standard history
• Knowlton, Evelyn H. and George S. Gibb. History of Standard Oil Company: Resurgent Years 1911-1927 (1956), the standard history
• Latham, Earl ed. John D. Rockefeller: Robber Baron or Industrial Statesman? (1949) excerpts from secondary sources
• Morris, Charles R. The Tycoons: How Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, Jay Gould, and J. P. Morgan Invented the American Supereconomy Times Books 2005 ISBN: 0805075992
• Nevins, Allan. Study in power: John D. Rockefeller, industrialist and philanthropist (1954). There are numerous editions and versions of this famous biography.
• Tarbell, Ida M. The History of the Standard Oil Company (1904), there are numerous editions and abridgements of this famous muckraking book.
• Williamson, Harold F. and Arnold R. Daum. The American Petroleum Industry: The Age of Illumination, 1859-1899 (1959) also: vol 2, American Petroleum Industry: the Age of Energy 1899-1959 (1964), major economic history

Rjensen 21:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Man, this page attracts the jerks

I don't know if this is a recent phenom or what, but this bio seems to attract a lot of vandalism. I'm grateful the Wiki police seem to be on it, but I wonder if this isn't a coordinated attack, at least recently?--DocGov 22:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

He's one of the most famous of the "robber barons", and that probably leads to a lot of it. Other than that I don't really know. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 23:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Concerned about tenor of changes

It seems like the overall thrust of the recent changes by Rjensen is to dilute the emphasis on Rockefeller's philanthropy in lieu of a greater emphasis on his personal or family wealth with terms like "complex system of trusts" which don't really say anything (is this to imply something about his wealth or his descendants other than they inherited a lot of money?) and replacing objective, concrete terms like "Vice President" with subjective, notional terms like "major figure in national affairs. Where is this going?--DocGov 23:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• • I made the changes because I think they more accurately capture what this is all about. If you think NR was not a "major figure in national politics" then let's discuss it-- I say that's what's important. (There were dozens of unimportant VP's and the VP years were not important for NR.) The family trusts are quite important because they were set up to guarantee the family would be around a very long time AND that no one could give the $$$$ away faster than it accumulated. (Compare Carnegie or Morgan for $$$$ families that faded away). As for Philanthropy that is now given more detailed emphasis in the summary. The business about dimes is an old joke & should be deleted.

I'm not sure what you mean by "what this is all about," but I'm willing to take this one step at a time. First, I am still interested in hearing your response to the note above concerning his absolute and relative wealth (BTW-I'm not sure about your reason for doing so, but I agreed with nixing the $200B number). Regarding family trusts, I don't think their complexity is a relevant historical fact. The Rockefeller wealth didn't dissipate in a much different pattern than the Vanderbilt, Astor, or Ford wealth, even considering its size. Carnegie was the exceptional one in deliberately leaving little to his heirs. Next, I don't know what you mean by Philanthropy being given "more detailed emphasis in the summary." If you said it was given sufficient emphasis in the body of the article, I would understand and, to an extent, agree. In the summary, though, I think that the general scope and nature of his philanthropy, which goes far beyond U of C, deserve more than a generic mention of "foundations." The "dimes" stories are historically true and part of his 'legacy'--I don't see any problem with that, but will cut it down a bit to a more sober entry. DocGov 04:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not how much money JDR had --five billion -- ten billion--100 billion --how can that matter? The issue is how much of the economy he controlled. I tried to add numbers that told us that for 1937 when we have a will that can be added up. Philanthropy: yes please add more details. It is very important (though I think his son and a couple aides did the actual giving out of $). The dime story is true but it was retold to ridicule JDR. The trusts are important part of his legacy and he worked hard to make sure they would be. Nelson R had some interesting discussions at his Congressional hearings for VP in 1974. He explained that he only controlled the annual income from the trusts, while hundreds of people had control of more capital than he. Rjensen 05:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

How can it matter? Why does Forbes sell out it's "400" issues faster than any other? I'm with you that there is no point in quantifying how much, exactly, he had; it's a moving target with inflation. Still, I can't see any reason to leave out any mention about how much he had in general terms relative to modern moguls by pretending it doesn't "matter" and that

only the "proportion of GDP" matters. I don't think it's necessary

to get into details of national wealth or "annual GDP" (which is not a real term, by the way) in support of what was plainly stated as "the highest proportion of national wealth.":::As for the dimes, here is what Chernow says:

It has been estimated that Rockefeller distributed between 20,000 and 30,000 coins, and many recipients cherished these mementos, wove them into amulets, or displayed them at home.'':::Though I don't doubt there was the ridicule you chose to highlight in some quarters regarding this practice, there is no mention of it by his biographers, and I don't think it's historically relevant.--DocGov 07:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right to keep the dimes! But the money question is another matter. JDR matters a great deal to people because of the issue that great wealth is dangerous. (especially his) Ford by contrast was popular and people did not begrudge his money. I think it really does matter how much of the economy JDR's funds controlled, and the usual measure is % GDP and % national wealth (I give both). In fact his money has been tied up in trusts since the 1920s and can not be used to influence the economy--the way Gates can right now, say. Rjensen 08:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you about the relevance or importance of "the money question." I agree it's important, and for the reasons you state. I'm just suggesting that it is no more interesting than the "absolute level of wealth" statement that you kept deleting. I'm also suggesting that the exact proportion of GDP is probably not as important as the fact that his level of control was far higher than anyone else's. The particular issue I had with specifying a number is that any number is bound to be squishy (I'm an economist, so I know about squishy numbers), and how much Rockefeller actually "controlled" is, as you intimated about his heirs, a bit uncertain.--DocGov 08:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we're pretty well agreed. There is no "absolute level of wealth" here--it is really quite meaningless to talk about what $1m could buy in 1906 versus $100m or whatever in 2006, and to put it in Wiki misleads people into thinking it is meaningful. On the other hand the issue "does wealth = power" is alive today: Congress is now debating repeal of the inheritance tax which was designed to deal with JDR and his cohort. After 1920 JDR's $$$ was mostly so locked up that nobody controlled it or could use at whim. Rjensen 09:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I give up. I keep saying absolute and relative wealth are both historically interesting and relevant, and you seem to keep saying that only the latter is "meaningful." Hopefully, we're close enough on this to leave the current passage as is. With regards to your significant additions overnight (my night, anyway), I think they're very good. They beg the age-old question in historical writing about how to balance chronology and themes, which necessarily invites a point of view about what is important. I had written most of the version you had altered, tyring to stick largely to the timeline of his life. You have re-arranged some of the material in terms of themes. Overall, I think you did a good job of balancing these while maintaining NPOV, but I'm concerned that, with the overall amount of content being added, it begins to get confusing to the reader. Alas, I have no better answer. As I said, I think you did the best one could, and the additional info is good.--DocGov 15:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice words!! I agree with the problem of balancing chronology and topics--of course there is no "perfect" solution. But I think the article will help readers whatever their interest. To boost the philanthropy issues I added details and also added articles on Frederick T. Gates and the General Education Board which did not exist before. 21:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Who cares if the man gave away a dime?? what's the big deal about listing it in this article?? i say the more info the better. I had included a quote from JDR,jr about his father that is known fact and of course it was deleated from the article as i thought it would be by the WIKI POLICE!! I don't write ANY articals for wiki anymore!! what's the use!! I now use world book.

Free use pics available

There are a number of free use pictures available at the Florida Photographic Collection[2]. You need to credit the FPC on the image. They use the tag {{Flphoto}}. I ran across them while looking for images for WikiProject NASCAR. Enjoy! Royalbroil 05:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Added See also entry

• Commission on Industrial Relations whose chairman grilled John D. Rockefeller for three days about the Ludlow massacre.

I am curious why there is no mention of the Ludlow massacre here. Travb 11:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

There were many controversies around Rockefeller during his career, and it seemed inappropriate to highlight this one among others, especially given his remote and indirect participation. His son was more directly involved, especially in the aftermath. It was arguably a defining moment in Jr's life, particularly in setting him apart from his father.--DocGov 03:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

His IQ

Has Rockefeller taken iq test, or was there any study about his iq? Its interesting to compare his iq and iqs of other intellignt people.

While he was no doubt extremely smart I would guess that he mainly built his fortune on very hard work than his intelligence. 121.217.29.88 (talk) 04:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Death

Did he really die of AIDS like Nas said or is that just a rumor?

• He died long before AIDS was known. Rlevse 22:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

article title should be changed to John D. Rockefeller

The man was always known as John D. Rockefeller and the article should be so titled. any objections? Rjensen 16:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

John D now has his middle initial back. (Note there is even a JDR foundation), Rjensen 21:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

concur with adding the middle initial "D." I also noticed the earlier change and thought it inappropriate. Vaoverland 03:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Weirdness in infobox

What on earth does it mean when it says "$855 MillionUSD(38Billion)"? I leave this to someone else to sort out; I haven't been following this article, and just came over here following up more or less arbitrarily from an edit made elsewhere. - Jmabel | Talk 06:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

it's garbled in the infobox (and clearer in the text). So I dropped it and added two major roles as investor & philanthropist. Rjensen 08:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Weirdness in intro

Hi folks. I'm a wiki reader, but don't know much about the editing process. However, there appears to be some vandalism in the introduction -- something about "wendy" and "dale" and "omg" and "bleeeding." But it's only visible on the page -- when I went to the "edit this page" link to remove it, I didn't see it there.

Hopefully, smarter wiki editors than I will know what to do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.192.21.43 (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

monopoly

was Rockerfeller a good or bad monopoly? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.113.43.68 (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

He was neither. He was a entrepeneur. His company Standard Oil was considered by many to be a monopoly but when it was finally broken up it didn't have anywhere near a complete market share. If by bad monopoly you mean government forced monopoly then no it wasn't. --71.223.247.162 22:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

monopoly

describe the good and bad effects of monopoly during rockerfeller era? whas he a good monopoly bussiness man or a bad one? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.113.43.68 (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

lol wut?

The standard oil company has been widely criticized for providing oil resources to Nazi Germany.

That was in the most recent edit by 24.150.163.175. No citation, proper grammar, and Standard Oil Company was dissolved in 1911, a good twenty years or so before Adolf Hitler became popular in Germany. I undid this edit; it just seems like vandalism to me. --70.237.199.251 02:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the code is borked

The birth_time part of the page was displaying incorrectly on the page- I tried fixing it, but all I managed to do was hide it. For the time being I guess thats better than having it displayed incorrectly, but if someone who is experienced with wikipedia could look over it I'd appreciate it.

75.132.121.203 15:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)The guy who edited it 9/16/07

Labor practices

An earlier post raised the issue of labor practices and mentioned the Ludlow Massacre, which Wikipedia treats in some detail. It occurred in 1914, but occurred in response to pre-existing labor practices, such as mandatory employee use of company stores to purchase goods, which kept employees in slave-like conditions. Resistance led to the killing of men, women, and children. This article seems remarkably one-sided in mentioning that Rockefeller offered generous terms to fellow owners who allowed him to take over their operations while omitting all mention of this other source of his wealth. A more informed historian than I should deal with it, but without it, arguments over fine details of relative vs. absolute wealth seem surreal. For all I know. Rockefeller himself was ignorant of the labor practices, but obviously he benefited financially from them. Jgrudin (talk) 07:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)jgrudin

Geneology

Who is the oldest current living blood relative of John D. Rockefeller?

138.88.174.244 20:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Anonymus138.88.174.244 20:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

He may have had his bad side but...

but what?! This article mentions nothing about the labor practices, judged abhorrent by many (eg. Ludlow massacre <-not JUST this!), executed by Rockefeller's companies. All that is mentioned in the article are alluding lines and quotes akin to the title of this section, "He may have had his bad side..."...well what was this bad side?! Very very important to include this in the article of a man who had so much influence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.236.67 (talk) 13:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Correct me if I'm wrong (a given on Wikipedia), but John D. Rockefeller was retired during the 1913-14 Ludlow Massacre. In fact his monopoly had even been broken up by then. His son, JD Rockefeller, Jr. was involved in the hearings, so I agree that the incident should be mentioned in HIS Wikipedia article, but it doesn't seem appropriate here...unless JDR himself had a larger role I'm not aware of. Also, you state "not JUST this!", but you don't say WHAT ELSE you're referring to. If you'd be more specific, people might be able to look into it. I do agree, however, that this article doesn't have nearly enough to say about his "bad side." These robber barons were ruthless, and Rockfeller's history has been whitewashed almost as much as Carnegie's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.206.132 (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Rockefeller and Vivekananda

Rockefeller's first major donation was on the advice of Swami Vivekananda (First Meeting With John D. Rockefeller). I think this is relevant enough to add to the article but I am not sure. Any objections? --Mankar Camoran^talk 15:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess I was being overcautious. I just added it to the article. Thank you. --Mankar Camoran^talk 11:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS and it is a reliable source. Various sources make up an article and this is one of them. I don't think there is any reason to doubt this. --Mankar Camoran^Talk 14:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear NothingWorthy, if you want to guard this article against all reliable primary sources except your own, all I can say is evamastu (be it so). By the way, I am also wary of WP:3RR so I do not want to revert your edits again and again and again! --Mankar Camoran^Talk 18:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It is probably not relevant enough to add to the article anyway. --Mankar Camoran^Talk 12:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops

Dear editors: Oops, I "corrected" something that should not have been corrected, here: [3]. Sorry about that. Famspear (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Article title

Shouldn't the article be at John D. Rockefeller, Sr.? - Dudesleeper / Talk 09:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be a redirect (and it is now), but remember he wasn't really known as senior until later in life when his son was also prominent. I see that Chernow's biography uses the Sr., but you can see from that list that he's more commonly known without it. It's quite clear that this John Rockefeller is the John Rockefeller. --JayHenry (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)hes rich

brhrfjksdbvbjkbfjk;sbvgnmvsjbvdjkB MJbcnmbsdbfjkwegh ljkhfibre ,m;hbcle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.74.238.210 (talk) 12:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Support to eugenics

This American was also a famous supporter of eugenics.Agre22 (talk) 14:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)agre22

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} I visited John D. Rockefeller's grave recently and recorded the site's coordinates with my portable GPS. Please add the following to the summary bio at the top right of the page under Born, Died and so on: Buried: Lakeview Cemetery, Cleveland, Ohio USA Gravesite Coordinates: N 41^o 30.675' W081^o 35.484' M10t37w (talk) 02:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Checked on Geohack, added to infobox, thanks.  Chzz  ►  02:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Y Done

The Interstate Commerce Act

Contrary to the post, the Interstate Commerce Act was enacted in 1887, not 1877. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.194.135 (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

Toolbox
dashboard disambig links external links See WP:DEADREF for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:John D. Rockefeller/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Thank you for nominating this article. No invalid external links. Please fix silent partner which is a disamb. link.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Reword: "on tricks and schemes and avoided plain hard work." N Not done Can you tell me, reword how, to what?--Wustenfuchs 11:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

   You can choose the exact words, but one possiblity is "expended considerable energy on tricks and schemes and avoided plain hard work."→"gained a reputation for shady schemes rather than productive work." - Y Done--Wustenfuchs 12:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

   "to Vaseline"->"to Vaseline petroleum jelly" Y Done--Wustenfuchs 11:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

   "separate corporations across dozens of states,"->"dozens of separate corporations operating in just one state," Y Done--Wustenfuchs 11:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

   Wikify Robert Nobel and natural gas (I did natural gas for you.Racepacket (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)) (Thx, I'll put Robert Nobel on hold for now, I can't find decent literature at the moment)

   "26 Broadway and Rockefeller"->"26 Broadway, and Rockefeller" Y Done--Wustenfuchs 12:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

   "buying spree acquiring land for crude oil"->"buying spree acquiring leases for crude oil" Y Done--Wustenfuchs 12:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

   "remained independent."->"remained separate companies." Independent oil companies have a different meaning - i.e., non-majors. Y Done --Wustenfuchs 12:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

   "such 'Ivy League' institutions as Yale, Harvard, Columbia, Brown, Bryn Mawr, Wellesley and Vassar."->"such established eastern institutions as Yale, Harvard, Columbia, Brown, Bryn Mawr, Wellesley and Vassar." - Bryn Mawr, Wellesley and Vassar were not Ivy League. He also donated a physics building to Cornell University, which is an Ivy League college. Y Done--Wustenfuchs 12:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

   Combine Flexner Report sentence with medical education paragraph and move the "Ivy League" sentence to the General Education Board paragraph. Y Done (at least I think so, can you check it to see did I do it right?) --Wustenfuchs 12:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

   Reword: "It also built the Peking Union Medical College in China into a great institution." N Not done how? --Wustenfuchs 12:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

   "great institution"→"notable institution" Y Done--Wustenfuchs 12:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

   "career in the industry"->"career in the oil industry" Y Done --Wustenfuchs 12:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

   Delete from Legacy section: "John D. Rockefeller rests at Cleveland, Ohio's Lake View Cemetery." - This is already covered in the Death section Y Done--Wustenfuchs 12:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

   All done here... Y Done

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable? (I don't really understand this...)--Wustenfuchs 12:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

   A. References to sources:

   I did not have time to test the hard copy sources, but assume good faith.

   Fn 5 - pipe trick does not work in footnotes. Please fix.

   Fn 59 - please fix format.

   Fn 62 - naked URL - please use {{Cite web}}

   Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1887 not 1877. Also need a footnote for that sentence.

   http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/rockefellers/timeline/index.html also supports Bill Rockefeller being a bigamist, marrying a second wife in 1855.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   please provide sources for the {{citation needed}} tags

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   What about his role during the great depression? Sources say it wiped out half the fortune.

   The ICC regulated both the railroads and oil pipelines. You need to remove the impression that oil pipeline rates were never regulated. See the Hepburn Act of 1906 which added oil pipeline rates to the ICC's responsibilties.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   No edit wars.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   File:John D. Rockefeller 1885.jpg - how do we know its first publication was before 1923? Isn't it better to use the fact that its copyright was not renewed?

   File:John-D-Rockefeller-sen.jpg - how do we know when the photographer died, if we don't know his name? Isn't it better to use the fact that the copyright was not renewed?

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This article represents significant work by its author. Putting review on hold for you to address concerns. Racepacket (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I just need more time for sources... I'll solve this soon.--Wustenfuchs 15:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

We are all volunteers, and I understand that you have other demands on your time. Please keep me posted. Racepacket (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Any progress to report? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your hard work. Feel free to ask questions of me whenever necessary. I have answered your questions above. Racepacket (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It does not appear that you have edited the article for the past 4 or 5 days. Do you want to continue? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 04:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I am leaving a message on your talk page. If I don't hear from you in 24 hours, I will have to fail the review.

Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 09:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I need explanation, what does pipe trick mean? What is problem with Fn5?; How to fix format in Fn59, wher is the problem?; Maybe it's Fn 63 not Fn 62, but I erased Fn 63 because link was google search results, and this information is alredy sourced, so...--Wustenfuchs 12:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

April 12

• In the main text, if you type [[Fortune (magazine)|]] that is the same as typing [[Fortune (magazine)|Fortune]] which is called the "pipe trick." It does not work in the footnotes. I have fixed footnote 5.
• I removed the square brackets from fn. 60.
• Please note that there is a {{More sources}} template in the "Philanthropy" section. You must add more footnotes and remove the template before we can pass the article as a GA. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thx, I do that.--Wustenfuchs 21:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Less then half of section done... very late here (0:11), so I do it later...--Wustenfuchs 22:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Please keep up the good work! Racepacket (talk) 02:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

In the last few days, a bit of an edit war has broken out as to whether Rockefeller was a German-American. Titan by Chernow at page 3 is convincing on the point of Rockefeller's family tracing back to Germany. Although by custom, lead paragraphs have fewer footnotes, if this is a point of contention, I am added a footnote to end this back and forth. We need stability to satisfy the GA criteria, so everyone please cooperate. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Whatever his Franco-German roots, they seem too distant and uncertain to call him a German-American in the first line. Plus, one documented ancestral link with Germany means that many of his European ancestors probably came from elsewhere. Dwight Eisenhower's page does not mention his German-American identity right up front. It seems like the evolving convention in Wikipedia bios is to include a hyphenated identity in the opening line only if the subject is biographically associated with two nationalities (e.g. born in Mexico, lived and worked in France, etc). If we were to follow the example hear then virtually all American bios would include a hyphenated identity up front (some very long), which they don't. Unless an American's legacy is strongly associated with his/her racial or ethnic heritage, it would seem more appropriate to include mention of that stuff in the body of the text instead, where it can be dealt with more subtly.

Two paragraphs left to source and we are done. Racepacket (talk) 09:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice, I'll finish this today... If any problems I'll tell you, but I bealive I can solve that out. And I hope this edit war ended...--Wustenfuchs 12:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Someone placed a [citation needed] tag on the sentence, "Congress created the Interstate Commerce Commission which was tasked with enforcing equal rates for all railroad freight, but by then Standard was depending more on pipeline transport." - The sentence really does require a source. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I added source.

All done here...--Wustenfuchs 20:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This was quite an undertaking, but the article is much improved. Congratulations. Racepacket (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Rockarchcenter, 17 May 2011

Hello,

The Rockefeller Archive Center's url has changed and we'd like it updated.

In the "External Links" section, please change:

• The Rockefeller Archive Center: The authorised Rockefeller family bibliography

to

• The Rockefeller Archive Center: The authorised Rockefeller family bibliography

Also, we think a link to our site in the "See also" section would be appropriate:

The Rockefeller Archive Center

Also, we have a biography of JDR on our site, which would fit in the "External Links" section as well:

A biography of John D. Rockefeller

Thank you.

Rockarchcenter (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Partly done: I updated the link in the external links section, but the "See also" section is for Wikipedia articles and one link to the Archive Center should suffice in the external links section. I just used a general link to the main page and readers can navigate further from there. — Bility (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Philanthropy

In the section on Philanthropy this sentence occurs: "The study had been undertaken by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching; it revolutionized the study of medicine in the United States."

It's a total non sequitur. What study?? Also, no citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.180.165 (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

the German-American label....

...makes absolutely no sense, and frankly seems like a weird expression of nationalist pride on the part whichever editor is responsible. Did Rockefeller even know he was (only partly, and very distantly) German? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwd123 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It is also against MOSBIO policy. I have deleted this label. (I did so before I was aware of this discussion thread, but I am glad somebody else noticed this boosterism.) Robert K S (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Robber Baron / Criticism

As this guy is one of the famous Robber Barons - shouldn't this fact have a little more presence in this article? And No section of criticism? Why? Instead there's place for quite a primitive poem this robber baron wrote about himself? Why? Doesn't ring objective to me. --85.178.88.234 (talk) 09:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 January 2012

he never went to collage 

108.49.80.101 (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this change? --Jnorton7558 (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)