Talk:J. P. Morgan

Drexel, Morgan & Co.

In 1895 the firm became J. P. Morgan & Co.

Does that mean that Drexel, Morgan & Co. became J. P. Morgan & Co?--Jerryseinfeld 21:56, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

New York

J. S. fu & Co., of which he became head; in 1864–1871 he was a member of the firm of Dabney, Morgan & Co

So J. S. Morgan & Co. was in London and Dabney, Morgan & Co was his first job in New York?--Jerryseinfeld 21:59, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Morgan's skin disease

The disease affecting Morgan's nose is cited to be rosacea, however, Jean Strouse's book Morgan: American Financier (1999, Random House, NY) says the disease is rhinophyma. Is there a difference?

Rhinophyma is a late stage of rosacea. [1] - Nunh-huh 01:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

He must have been really self-conscious about his disease to attack photographers because his rosacea and skin problems were virtually undetectable in the quality of photos in his day.--Exander 07:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he foresaw Ted Turner's penchant for colorization? ;-) --Bobak 17:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No amount of rosacea causes the disfiguration shown in the photo. (Although photo manipulation can do that.) 65.23.190.125 08:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)he was gay and had stds

Billion Dollar Corporation

...and was the world's first billion-dollar corporation

Reference? And how is this measured? Is it trying to imply that in the thousands of years of recorded history, no organization/corporation ever amounted to the equivalent of the billion dollars (in their years)?

Unless I see an explanation, I vote to remove/edit this statement. Beetle B. 00:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It means what it says: it was the first company valued at over a billion dollars. - Nunh-huh 01:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

And in contemporary dollars at that, not adjusted for inflation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.181.12.201 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 31 May 2006

He was a billion dollar merger: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Morgan_cartoon-1.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.164.52.89 (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Frances Tracy Marriage?

The article is missing the last two digits of the year of his marriage date with Frances Tracy. Anyone know them?198.24.31.108 16:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

J.P MorganChase picture

Isn't the picture there basically an ad? I don't see how it is related to the information either (there isn't anything about j.p. morgan chase in that section). (Toritaiyo 20:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC))

Tesla

I think that the section about J. Pierpont Morgan's financial patronage was very POV in favor of Morgan and against Tesla and needs to be rewritten to reflect a more NPOV. FDR MyTalk 4:31:32 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This section lacks sources and I have been unable to find any. My own research into Tesla's Wardenclyffe project leads me to believe the "Where can I put the meter?" quote by J.P. Morgan is part of an urban myth. I'm advising revision or removal of this section unless sources are found. 124.171.167.34 (talk) 12:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Rise to power

Some time in the future when more information is added, it will need to be spun off into different sub-headings (perhaps even now). I added about the A&S affair this morning and the "Early Career" section is looking a little bloated. - Ollieollieollie 13:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

This article needs a controversy section. J.P. is one of the earliest examples of industrial power, and many people suffered because of it. In particular through his rail roads. This should be included in the article. If we are willing to call him a "philanthropist", then we should definetly balance this positive with some negative.216.241.228.209 19:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The "scandal" of Morgan's selling back to the Union army defective guns is incomplete and misleading. The "remachined" guns failed nearly 100% of the time, injuring and even killing soldiers. The army threatened prosecution. Morgan's reply was that the army knew the guns were defective (not antiquated as the article suggests) because the army sold them in that condition. That section of the article should be flagged as biased as it purports to separate Morgan from this early scandal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.57.6.254 (talk) 17:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right. They don't display any criticisms at all, while he's a very controversial figure of the 20th century. I wish I could say this in my real words here, esp. adjectives. Anyway, we have to create that section. This part is, I think, so important here that whole new articles will appear in time.--Quinceps (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

One might consider this article to be misleading because the influence of major investors on JP Morgan is greatly understated. Mr. Morgan was a minority shareholder = 6%, owning $68 million of "his" $1.3 billion dollar corporation (see wiki article). As such, the majority shareholders deserve the majority of the credit for actions and achievements previously attributed to JP Morgan personally.

Various facts and figures related to the above are included in JP Morgan's will. A copy of the will eludes me. Rather than quote from memory, can someone post a link to the Morgan will or provide pertinent exerts that may enlighten both the novice and professional historian? --gibson88 (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Morganite

I added a quick ref to Morgan being the namesake for the gemstone Morganite, in the legacy section. He was an avid collector of gemstones hence the honary. Other editors may want to fit this into a better section of the article, and expand somewhat from the reference. Cheers.SauliH 02:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Roman numeral?

What's with the "I" after his name in the first sentence? Clarityfiend 06:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone probably thought his son was called John as well. I'll correct it, unless I'm wrong Ollieollieollie 17:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Just seen his son was legally called "John" but used "Jack", evidently to distinguish himself from his father. Ollieollieollie 17:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Holy Mother!!

Is that $22b adjusted for inflation? If it isn't, he'd be worth almost half a trillion dollars today!!! That's $500,000,000,000. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.50.98.34 (talk) 08:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

No, that's not adjusted for inflation. Morgan was one of the richest people in the world during the height of his career. — Wackymacs 13:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

So, basically, he's 10 times as rich as Bill Gates?

Not unless he figured out a way to take it with him. Wahkeenah 09:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

However, those kind of extraordinary numbers help explain why he was in a position to literally bale out the U.S. Government at one point. And anyone possessing half a trillion dollars today would be in a similar spot, except they would probably have moved offshore, put their money in a secret account, and told the government, "You're on your own." Wahkeenah 09:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yet for all his wealth, he couldn't get his nose disease cured. God's little way of literally tweaking him. Wahkeenah 09:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't that he couldn't get it cured, it's that he didn't want to. He believed that his body was in a fine balance (derived in part from his recurrent childhood illnesses) and that if the disease affecting his nose was cured, something else would take its place. Ollieollieollie 15:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Right. Wahkeenah 16:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hoaxes

Two hoaxes have crept into the article and I removed them. The first is that Morgan sold defective rifles in the Civil War. (He sold no rifles whatever). See Business History Review, Vol. 47, No. 1 (Spring, 1973), pp. 109-111 at [2] for full expose of how left-wing writers invented the story. The second is "At the height of Morgan's career during the early 1900s, his interests held 341 directorships and he controlled over 100 corporations worth more than $22 billion in assets." That is from the Pujo Committee report and it covers ALL partners in several major New York banks, including Morgan's major rivals. See Brandeis book at [3] Rjensen 14:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget the part about selling diseased blankets. Wahkeenah 17:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Jean Strouse would disagree about the rifles; pp93-95 of her book give a detailed account of the transaction.Ollieollieollie 17:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted there are different accounts of the rifle story, and that it is unsure whether it happened or not. — Wackymacs 18:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

J.P. wouldn't have done something unethical. His motives were always pure. Wahkeenah 19:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, says who? Would be nice to have references for that. — Wackymacs 09:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

References for J.P. being ethical? That would take some digging. Wahkeenah 09:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Without references, its POV. — Wackymacs 08:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Usher Quote ?

Some idiot put a line about Usher in the "Early Years" section; I have removed it. Jmccallum1401 19:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Shot by German professor at Cornell University?

Which J. P. Morgan was shot by a German professor from Cornell University during World War I? I believe it was the son, because my sources say it happened in July 1915, when the elder Morgan was already dead. I don't see any mention of this in either article and I'm wondering if my book ("Don't Know Much About History" by Kenneth C. Davis) was wrong. If anyone can second this information I'd be glad to update the appropriate page.--M. Frederick 15:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

This article has good writing and has neutral point of view. I'll pass it. Bernstein2291 19:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Architect of Federal Reserve

I wonder if anyone might be interested in starting a section about Morgan's influence in the creation of the Federal Reserve system. As of late it seems to be a resurgent criticism of the man, at least on the web.

I agree this should definitely be a new section. He was certainly was the architect and it was followed through by his son. Has the FED done it's job to stabilize the markets over the years? Should there be another section on his involvement in panic of 1908?

JP Morgan was a hired hand, a CEO paid @6% profits from the people who formed the Fed. The documents are there for all to see, however, mainstream notions are guided and persuaded by "friends" of the Fed, then and now.

Titanic Boarding

While it is true the Titanic had one stop in France, it was at Cherbourg, not Le Harve as stated in the article.

TJBugg '07 18:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

I think these belong on Wikiquote, not here. There are J. P. Morgan Wikiquote pages already on the Lithuanian Wikiquote: [4] and the Portuguese Wikiquote: [5].  --Lambiam 07:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:J. P. Morgan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

1) This article needs better lead. It should be longer, and should summarize the main milestones of J.P. Morgan's life.

2) The citations are inadequate. There are vast tracts of unsourced material.

Ruslik (talk) 07:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I will delist this article. Ruslik (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

reference to J. P. Morgan in Dos Passos' Manhattan Transfer

I'm not sure whether this is the right place to do it, but I'd like to mention that, apart from all those references to J. P. Morgan already specified in the article, there is also a reference to J. P. Morgan in John dos Passos' Manhattan Transfer (Mariner Books/Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000, p. 137). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.63.90.105 (talk) 09:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Why no mention of the Rothschild money?

Why is there no mention of the Rothschild money loaned to J P Morgan? Where did the money for investment come from when J P morgan started out? Is the article trying to do historical revisionism here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.131.8 (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep the article also conviently misses out the part that the bank was 87% owned by the Rothschilds and that he was merely a foot soldier for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.13.80 (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course it conviently leaves this out! When has any article on here ever said jack shit about Rothschild money when it should?! Typical. Historical revisionism indeed, wouldn't expect anything less from wikipedia..

One of the pictures has JP holding a knife

That's defacement isn't it? I highly doubt he had a picture taken of him holding a knife. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/JP_Morgan.jpg I am completely wrong! According to the description in the link: "photo known for use of lighting to make chair's arm appear to be a knife. This information can be verified in ..." --76.115.63.120 (talk) 07:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Legacy

An entry on this discussion page's related article claimed that a restaurant in Montpelier, Vermont was named after this gentleman. This is incorrect - J. Morgan's was previously known as the Justin Morgan Room, named after Justin Morgan, a native Vermonter whose legacy includes the Morgan Horse. Raj Fra 11:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raj Fra (talk • contribs)

the age age at which he died is wrongly shown as 96 at right column.

the age age at which he died is wrongly shown as 96 at right column.However it is right in description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvingle (talk • contribs) 04:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

it is a very big maliti nation company in tha world so every person getingin this company its a good dreem

now a days mevery fincear take tha inspracetion jp morjen

it my self also —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.54.113 (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Enemies

Entire section is slanted with no citations listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.68.127 (talk) 05:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Jp morgan crash silver market with flood of paper silver, whilst increasing their physical silver holdings by 25 % in one week

JP morgan have been buying physical silver like crazy this week increasing physical silver holdings by 25%, at the same time as massive sell of in paper silver in the market depressing the price. This is illegal market manipulation in its worst form. How have they managed to purchase 250,000 tons of physical silver and yet the market dipped. That much physical silver being purchased in one week on the market should have had the price rocketing through the roof this is a huge purchase, alarm bells should have been going off on the trading rooms all over the world and all the business press and tv stations talking about it, and its all been hidden. Please spread around the net and world to every source. Please post this, tweet this, write to newspapers, mp's, tv stations. I knew something very wrong was going on this week as have had silver min by min ticker open on bookmark all week and watching with alarm as silver price shot up the crashed in matters of only hours like bucking mule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.94.252 (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Morgan in popular culture

I added a reference to a recent novel which includes J.P. Morgan as a prominent character - the book is called The Ghosts of Watt O'Hugh and focuses on Morgan's obsession with his first wife's death. Someone just deleted the reference. The book was fairly acclaimed, and was named as one of the best of 2011 by Kirkus Reviews - so I think that if Kirkus says that it is a notable book, it should be considered notable for the purpose of Wikipedia. At any rate, I was just trying to add a useful cite to this page that is a bit more recent than other cites, and it seems to me that this is a legitimate addition - if anyone disagrees, please reply on this page and we can discuss. thanks.

72.229.174.61 (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Kirkus included it as one of the 50 "Best Indie Books of 2011", but somehow neglected to award it a "Kirkus Star" to indicate "remarkable merit". The review of the book at Kirkus also neglects to mention an appearance by so notable a figure as J.P. Morgan.

The publisher's author's site for the book mentions Morgan – along with Oscar Wilde, 1874 New York City, the Hippodrome, and shootouts in Nebraska – as being present in the book, but with no special attention given to any one individual topic. The reviews on the author's site, again, make no mention of Morgan. Nor does the "Questions for the Author" page.

The review in The Boston Phoenix, which you originally used as a reference but omitted this time around, actually mentions Morgan:

So you could say there's a lot going on in this teeming tome, including cameos by Oscar Wilde and J.P. Morgan, the latter of whom is responsible for one of Watt's grimmer misadventures when he has the redoubtable cowpoke tossed into the Wyoming Territorial Prison in Laramie on a bogus murder charge.

Generally, "cameos" are not considered "prominent characters" in a work.

I still see no way mention of this book contributes to any understanding of J.P. Morgan. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

J.P Morgan is a major, prominent character in the book, and many pages and full chapters are devoted to him. I cite the book as the reference here and J.P. Morgan is a major character in the book. I will cite the specific pages when I re-edit this, but it shouldn't be necessary. What this cite does is show that J.P. Morgan continues to be mentioned in popular culture - this section is about references to J.P. Morgan in popular culture, and that's what this is. It seems to be a completely appropriate reference for the topic of the section. I don't think that it's correct that only books that were awarded a Kirkus star may be cited on Wikipedia - the test, I think, is "notable", and if you are just looking at Wikipedia is supposed to be a forum where editors may make appropriate additions to articles, and this is an appropriate addition. It's one sentence that is trying to be helpful, so I'm not sure why you want to delete it. Also, white Five Fists of Science looks like a good book, but I'm not sure why you feel it can stay in, but "Watt" gets deleted. What do you think? I know there is some way to challenge deletions and have these things judged, so I guess if we cannot agree we can ask for a third opinion or whatever we do. But it seems to me that deleting other people's additions to Wikipedia discourages participation, and Wikipedia is supposed to be participatory. Anyway, I hope you will agree and just let my contribution remain on the page. Rabbiscat (talk) 03:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I am pulling the switch on a new revision, and I hope I can address your concerns in this post.

First, you were concerned that the character only appears as a cameo in "Watt O'Hugh", so I have cited all the pages in which JP Morgan's appears, his story is told, or Mimi (his first wife) appears as a character. As you will see, it is more than a cameo.

Your other two critiques as I understand them were that the book wasn't awarded a Kirkus star, and that mention of the book doesn't "contribute[] to any understanding of J.P. Morgan".

As for the Kirkus star issue, as I've said, I don't think that's a requirement. Five Fists of Science, for example, doesn't have a Kirkus star. The question is whether the book is "notable", I believe, and whether the tone of the reference is neutral. I think that the reviews we've discussed in earlier posts show that the book is notable. As for neutrality - my last draft tried to justify inclusion; in this draft, I've just included it, without justification (i.e., without the rave reviews), which makes it more neutral. I am justifying inclusion in this explanation. I don't believe that it's necessary to justify inclusion within the text of the entry - none of the other Popular Culture entries justify inclusion - and so this one shouldn't do so either.

Finally, I can see your point about whether this reference - or indeed any reference to Morgan in popular culture - adds to a knowledge of JP Morgan as person. I think one could make the argument that the whole section could be deleted. (After all, the various biographies I have read of Morgan don't have a "popular culture" section.) The purpose of the popular culture section, I think, is to show where J.P. Morgan is included in popular culture, such as novels and movies, and perhaps to tell people who want to read popular depictions of Morgan where they can find them, and in that regard mentioning this book is appropriate. Again, if a mention of Five Fists of Science is appropriate, a mention of Watt is appropriate. Either that, or the whole section should be deleted. I suppose that's a topic worthy of discussion, but these sections tend to be appreciated on Wikipedia.

I would also like to add more information about Mimi from Jean Strouse's book - she had a major impact on his life and is barely mentioned in this entry. My fear is that you will just delete it - the problem with Wikipedia is that when people try to add new information, other people just delete it. Some editors feel a proprietary interest in certain entries and try to protect them from revision. But that cuts down on the participatory nature of the site, which is supposed to be the purpose. So it discourages me from trying to improve the site, which is unfortunate, because I know a lot about J.P. Morgan. I'd really like to help improve the entry.

I think I've addressed your critique, and so I hope you will agree. If you do not, instead of just slashing the reference, please ask for a third opinion, or escalate it, which I think is the appropriate step to take at this point. But I do hope you will agree and leave it at this. It's a lot of effort to undertake just to add a sentence to an entry. Thanks. Rabbiscat (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

One other thing I would add here - the Kirkus review of The Alienist (which incidentally didn't receive a Kirkus star either) says "Carr fills out his narrative with obligatory cameos by Lincoln Steffens, Jacob Riis, J.P. Morgan ..." I just think there should be some sort of consistency in applying standards - if a cameo of JP Morgan isn't worth mentioning, and a book without a Kirkus star isn't worth mentioning, then we'd delete The Alienist (which would be silly - and I'm not advocating deleting the Alienist). I respect your right to your opinion and your involvement in Wikipedia, but I really think by any applicable standards, my addition was appropriate. Rabbiscat (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Getting this article relisted as "good"

A while ago, this article was "delisted" for the following reasons:

1) This article needs better lead. It should be longer, and should summarize the main milestones of J.P. Morgan's life.

2) The citations are inadequate. There are vast tracts of unsourced material

I've tried to work on 2), and now I believe there is just one unsourced fact, which I'll try to cite.

The first critique is pretty vague. I'm thinking of adding some more details on his first marriage and its effect on his life, and his Congressional testimony, which was sort of the epilog of his life. I just don't want someone deleting my addition! So if anyone has any objection to these two additions, please comment here so I don't waste my time and don't get into a war with anyone over it. Of course, I know it's not entirely possible to judge it now -

Does anyone have any more details on this criticism of the article?

Rabbiscat (talk) 05:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hall Carbine Affair

Much as I wish this incident were true as stated, scholarly opinion, contrary to the assertion in the article is that many of the 'facts' are negative embellishments to a profitable, but otherwise unexceptional deal. Charles Morris, the stated source, is not a scholar but, per Wikipedia, a lawyer and former banker.

Mrwhoohoo (talk) 04:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Whoohoo

Morgans Photography Collection Error.

"Morgan was also a patron to photographer Edward S. Curtis, offering Curtis $75,000 in 1906, for a series on the Native Americans."

However in Edward S. Curtis's wiki page it says "In 1906 J.P. Morgan offered Curtis $3,000 to produce a series on the North American Indian."

What was it? $75,000 or $3,000?

-Patrick