Talk:Standard Oil

Template:Vital article

Factual Error

The original Standard Oil Company has NOT been dissolved. The original Standard Oil Company was incorporated in 1870 and was commonly known as Sohio. The original Standard Oil Company remained independent until its merger with BP and still exists as a subsidiary of BP. See the Ohio Secretary of State's Corporate Records at:

http://www2.sos.state.oh.us/pls/bsqry/f?p=100:7:0::NO:7:P7_CHARTER_NUM:3675

It was the Standard Oil Trust, which controlled the various Standard Oil companies, that was dissolved in 1911.

dirtyharry667 (talk) 04:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Dwelling on unimportant detail

The names and descriptions of the oil tankers used in China are insignificant details in the history of Standard Oil, and one wonders why the author chose to devote so much text to them. That passage should be deleted IMO. Silty1 (talk) 04:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Formatting

The side bar on the right needs some format work. All the white that is created doesn't look to well. I don't know how to do it, else I would fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuego890 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Untitled discussion

The <refs> are all within <small> tags: what's going on there then? it is very crowdy

---

Was it the filing of the first Antitrust suit by Ohio A.G. David K. Watson? I am unable to find what day in May 1890 that occurred, but there was a general slide in the stock market beginning about then. Surely the date can be found. translator (talk) 04:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

---

There is obviously opinion here but purportedly that of the public. I find the mores of the company extremely believable especially in relation to the recent Microsoft saga!

---

Where are the "rules" from? Were they written down as formal company policy ? If so, where and when, and how did it come to light? Were they deduced from watching the company operate? By whom? --Robert Merkel

I am astonished that an article as nakedly POV as this has been allowed to stand unmodified as long as this one has. Tannin 10:43 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

I can't contribute to this one, but it really looks like the article needs to be NPOV'ed. Things as those "rules" should either be given proper references, or deleted. Averell 16:24, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Added this article to Wikipedia:Pages needing attention Averell 16:32, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Where is Imperial Oil in all of this? 18.24.0.120 02:43, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

This article really needs some research. . . which is not my strong point. Consider the broad treatment of the modern-day equivalent, microsoft, and this entry seems very very thin. Bubamara 10:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Last paragraph...

If they were dissolved in 1911 how on Earth whould that be possible? World War I whouldn't've even started yet. Thanx 68.39.174.150 06:10, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

And also, IG Farben says they were formed in 1925. Again, what's with the huge time discrepancies? Thanx 68.39.174.150 06:14, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

---

I replaced the attention tag that was recently removed. As much as this article has improved, it in no way is up to snuff (see the previous 3 posts). Bubamara 00:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I removed the parts that occurred after the breakup. The Seven Sisters discussion was misleading, the company names section included companies not part of the trust, and any SONJ discussion belongs in the Exxon Mobil article.--Beirne 09:52, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

---

I believe that it is just a typing error. If I am correct, the company was founded in 1862 and dissolved in 1911 by a group. He was after all the worlds' most hated person at the time. Some fella 02:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Broken Cite Link

The links to referrences used are not working.. this is definitely an issue since there is a lot of statistical data

34 companies?

I reverted an edit by User_talk:152.163.101.5 because it looked like vandalism, but I'm not sure, so can someone please factcheck? The edit in question is: "The Court's decision required Standard Oil to be broken into 34 companies, each with their own board of directors. Standard Oil’s founder retired shortly thereafter." which was changed to "37 companies", then reverted. I looked here: [1], but that count says 35 or 36 (depending how you count), so I'm at a loss. Bubamara 23:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

I would like to submit a neutrality dispute for this article, on the grounds that it portrays Standard Oil basically as an evil corporation out to destroy other businesses. This is an encyclopedia; its job is to give information, not preach public opinion. RichardSagers 07:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a sort of dogma about Standard Oil Is Bad, akin to that against Microsoft. Indeed, the company was more a victim of its competitors' PR campaigns than it was actually evil. And yes, it had many competitors, even at the time it was being broken up for being a supposed monopoly. --Kaz 21:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

the details on Standard's misbehavior come from the federal indictment, which was upheld by the district court, the court of appeals and the Supreme Court--and by most historians as well. Rjensen 21:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That is irrelevant to the question of the tone of this article. It should be neutral, and should include any relevant details regarding Standard, including the good and neutral. The company was more than the contents of the indictment, even aside from the political motivation therein. --Kaz 18:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

When you get convicted of crimes in federal court--yes indeed that is of great historical importance. The article makes sources clear when it quotes court documents. Let's not coddle criminals here--after you're proven guilty in court and lose your appeals, you are guilty. Rjensen 18:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Historians may agree with the Supreme Court antitrust ruling but economists may not. It wouldn't be the first time the government had made a colossal mistake... It also doesn't represent the controversy over whether muckraker Ida Tarbell was reporting factually or making up some of her more outrageous claims. Anyway, one and a half paragraphs to the opposing view, which doesn't seem to be fairly explained or linked to, versus the rest of the (rather large) page with clear anti-corporate bias doesn't seem to appropriately represent the controversy, still a hotly debated one 95 years after the court ruling. It would probably help to move details of the court case to its own page. --Error28 15:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep the court case. The company engaged in criminal acts and was convicted in one of the biggest trials in American history. People come to the article to find out about that central fact. Rjensen 21:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Although the court decision on the actions of Standard Oil, the article still lacks the benefit of another point of view. Not a word is said about the benefits of the Standard Oil "monopoly," or whether operating a successful company ought to be considered a criminal act. 173.67.22.42 (talk) 00:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Documented facts (such as the court case) should not be deleted. NPOV is best achieved not by deleting verifiable facts, but by adding others to show both sides (assuming that there are, indeed, two sides; no one would put an NPOV tag on the article on Al Capone because it shows him in an unfavorable light). If you can cite historians or economists in defense of Standard, that would be a worthwhile addition to the article. Plazak (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Just wondered if an antitrust lawyer added the clichéd and ever meaningless term “anti-competitive” and wondered if this constitutes a PoV violation? --Simpsons contributor (talk) 16:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Charts

The charts are ok, but why does the data stop at around 1905? Also, it would be good to have a chart showing the declining retail price of oil over time. It coincides with the increases in profit, as Standard was becoming more efficient and lowering its own costs of refining which resulting in them being able to charge lower prices. RJII 05:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• • good idea for charts. Charts are real easy to make in Excel but find the data first. ["to make rabbit stew. first catch the rabbit."] Rjensen 05:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes

I added the coding so that the footnotes would be visible in the article. I notice that the footnotes refer to something called "Jones." This is an incomplete citation. Does anyone have the full citation for "Jones"?? Yours, Famspear 18:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: Same question for the footnote reference for "Manns". Famspear 18:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

PSS: Same question for "Hidy and Hidy." Yours, Famspear 19:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear editors: OK, I now see that the full citations for all three were simply buried in the "Other reading" section. I have expanded the footnote citations accordingly. Sorry about that. In my profession, we're used to seeing footnotes standing on their own. That means that in the first citation location, we show the entire citation; only subsequent citations are abbreviated (such as "Jones, p. 10" and so on). Yours, Famspear 19:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

What about the allegations about the Standard Oil Companies sale of fuel to Nazi Germany for the bombing of London? How come that is not present in this article?

Because Standard Oil ceased to exist in 1911 and the companies that descended from it each have their own history. --Beirne 18:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

competitors

What were the main competitors of Standard Oil? Union Oil? Only little companies? -- Nichtich (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This is perhaps the most poorly composed article I have ever read on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stonno (talk • contribs) 14:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Animal fat?

The text says: "In 1904, Standard controlled 91% of production and 85% of final sales. Most of its output was kerosene (not animal fat)". I don't get it. What's the point of this parenthical remark? Is there some widespread misconception that kerosine is or contains animal fat, or that Standard Oil's main business was non-vegetal oils? — Adhemar (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed it, it was probably some old vandalism or playing. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably a reference to the fact that most of the world burned whale blubber for lights and fuel before kerosene was invented by Rockefeller's chemists. As mentioned in the Von Mises article in the footnotes section. Vegetarian/Environmentalists fail to notice how Rockefeller's company removed the need to burn animal fats for light and fuel at the same time that he made it affordable for everyone to make use of kerosene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.246.240.14 (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If this is an issue that is sometimes brought up in conversation, or is commonly used in debate, being known in some circles of discussion, would it then be worthwhile to simply rephrase it, such as wording it to say "replacing early use of animal fat" or "in part replacing earlier use of animal fats"; something along those lines? It could seem as peculiar additional knowledge to be tagged on to people otherwise, but if it is an indeed valued portion of information to certain joint demographics, which I would consider both capitalist advocates and vegetarian/animal rights advocates to be known and mention-worthy groups, could it not be worthwhile to tag on the small addition for that sake? Would seem reasonable to me. The notion that Standard Oil produced kerosene could of played a roll in the switch from animal products, does also seem to have some certain measure of historical significance standing on it's own, as well.

Victor Grey (talk) 11:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Representative Image

The image currently used in the Info Box should be changed. That graphic (torch and oval) was specific to Standard of Indiana. If perhaps a graphic was created that showed the logos of the different successor Standard Oil Companies, or what they are today, or even a Map, such as the one at US-Highways.com would be better for this article. TEG (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

i want to know why was his oil campany called a monopoly

Please read the article. This sounds like a homework question, and Wikipedia editors aren't here to do your homework. Also, please put new comments at the bottom of talk pages, not the top. TastyCakes (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Missing information

This article is missing information about how the government helped Standard Oil achieve its monopoly. It portrays the government as the white-horsed knight that saved the day, when in actuality Standard Oil was helped in its monopoly by the government. See for example [2] Wrad (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

WWII section

The WWII section has a number of problems. First, it states that "Standard Oil" had a cartel arrangement with IG Farben, but neglects to specify which Standard Company (this was long after the breakup). Second, it does not state what was perceived as wrong with the Standard-Farben alliance which was (I presume) entered into when the US and Germany were at peace; did Standard continue to trade with Farben after the US entered the war?. More detail on this point is needed. Going into detail about Farben's war crimes does not tell us anything about any culpability on the part of Standard; without a tighter Standard-Farben link documented in the article, this appears to be a classic "guilt by association" smear. Finally, the article does not state what connection, if any, there was between Standard and the DuPont combination. In short, the entire section is full of problems and needs to be improved or eliminated. Plazak (talk) 02:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Section removed for reasons given above. Plazak (talk) 02:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Post-breakup history

Because Standard Oil ceased to exist as such once it was broken up, is there any rationale for post-breakup history here? Any post-breakup history really belongs in the individual articles on the successor companies. The only post-breakup item pertinent to this article would be the re-joining of Exxon and Mobil. Plazak (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

No one came up with a rationale to keep post-breakup history, so I will remove much of it. Plazak (talk) 02:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Information on Operations

This article talks lots about the corporate structure and how it evolved over the years, but barely even mentions what Standard Oil actually did. There's no talk about it's operations, where it got it's oil from, exploration, refining, etc, etc. Would be great if someone could add that kind of stuff.

Robdavy (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Brands

Red Crown logo

I notice there is little here about branding, which seems odd to me because it is so often something that we go on about at great length for other companies. I'm pretty sure the pre-breakup Standard Oil was the origin of both the Red Crown and White Crown gasoline brands; someone who knows this history better than I should probably follow up. In any case, here's a photo with the Red Crown logo. - Jmabel | Talk 05:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

What leads you to feel pretty sure about a connection? — ℜob C. alias ÀLAROB 17:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Successor companies

When talking about ARCO, the statement "...recently part of BP but has since been sold to a Japanese company" is made. I don't believe that's true. The ARCO name is alive and well and is still controlled by BP in WA, OR, and northern CA. Tesoro purchased the rights to the name for the remaining southwest US sites. For all I know Tesoro may have replaced all ARCO stations with their own brand in those sites. Tesoro purchased the old ARCO refinery in Carson, CA while BP retains the old ARCO refinery in Blaine, WA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.249.68 (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

San Francisco

There is a station in San Francisco still labeled as "Standard". AmericanLeMans (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This basis for this article is inaccurate

There was never a Standard Oil that was dissolved. The Standard Oil Co. that was incorporated in Ohio in 1870 became a member of 2 different trusts and it was one of the companies whose stock was held by Standard Oil of New Jersey in 1899.

Details of the Supreme Court case involved are on Findlaw here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=221&page=1

The judicial decree was "... against seven individual defendants, the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, thirty-six domestic companies, and one foreign company which the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey controls by stock ownership; these thirty-eight corporate defendants being held to be parties to the combination found to exist" The remedies were: " The Standard Oil Company of New Jersey was enjoined from voting the stocks or exerting any control over the said thirty-seven subsidiary companies, and the subsidiary companies were enjoined from paying any dividends as to the Standard Company, or permitting it to exercise any control over them by virtue of the stock ownership or power acquired by means of the combination. The individuals and corporations were also enjoined from entering into or carrying into effect any like combination which would evade the decree. Further, the individual defendants, the Standard Company, and the thirty-seven subsidiary corporations, were enjoined from engaging or continuing in interstate commerce in petroleum or its products during the continuance of the illegal combination."

The original Standard Oil Co. continued to exist as an Ohio corporation for many years- in fact, it may still exist, although BP Oil acquired all assets of the corporation in 1987. There is a separate page for this company (AKA Standard Oil of Ohio) in Wikipedia.

I don't know how this can be fixed. Obviously, much of its content should be moved to the pages for the corporations involved but that may leave some details out that should be documented somewhere.

Dandlyin (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Very interesting history, but the situation as you describe it perhaps does not require such a draconian solution as breaking up this article. You note, and you certainly seem to know what you are talking about, that some/most/all of the post-breakup companies were already separately incorporated before the breakup, sometimes, in the case of SOHIO, many years before. Be that as it may, although the corporations were legally separate, before the breakup they were run more or less as divisions of a single company. Because the Rockefellers, Henry Rogers, and others ran the various Standards as if they were one company, the group performed as if it were one company, and it makes sense to describe it that way, as this article does. Breaking up the article into each separate component would certainly not convey the growth of the group, or its great importance to the 19th century oil industry. I believe that therefore this article should be kept more-or-less intact. It is my understanding - correct me if I am wrong - that the problem arose because early state incorporation laws allowed the corporation to operate only within the state where it was incorporated. To get around this, the Standard Oil trust simply incorporated separately in each state, but ran the separate corporations as if they were parts of one company. Proposed solution: simply rename the article Standard Oil trust. Very little else would have to be changed in this article. In the subsidiary articles, for accuracy, it should be noted that their legal incorporations were pre-breakup, although they did not function as independent corporations until the breakup. Plazak (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's interesting and intentionally complex- John D. and his lawyers made it so. The government's case against the firms was a 23-volume set of several thousand pages of details that had been accumulated during nearly 40 years of operation. I considered the solution you suggest but there were 2 Standard Oil trusts before the creation of the holding company operated by Standard Oil of New Jersey. Neither of the trusts was dissolved, rather they were replaced by new organizations. Most of the data shown in the text box is specific to Standard Oil of Ohio and should be moved to that page- with the correction that it was not dissolved. There were many more corporations held by Standard Oil of New Jersey than those who were found guilty- 37 or so were not found guilty but all were required to cease collusion with one another and Standard Oil of New Jersey was ordered to restore their original stock. As they say, "I am not a lawyer". We might need one or more to decide how all this should be reorganized.

Dandlyin (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I think our different perspectives stem from different perceptions of the word "trust." You seem to be using it to describe a specific legal corporate structure, such as Standard of New Jersey's control of the rest at the time of the breakup. And you may very well be correct. I was using "trust" in a more informal, but very functional sense of a unified control by Rockefeller et al., regardless of the legal structures, which shifted over time as Rockefeller found necessary or convenient to excersize control over the group. If trust is the wrong word for the ongoing unified control of the Standard Oil group of companies, then I am in error. There must be some good word for it. If not, then perhaps the article should be renamed Standard Oil trusts (plural) to reflect the fact you bring up that there were more than one trust, presumably succeeding one another but all performing the same function. Regards, Plazak (talk) 05:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say, I don't know how to fix this problem but the facts show that there was never a Standard Oil company that was dissolved and the contents of the text box are a mixture of the original Standard Oil Co. incorporated in Ohio combined with later management under Standard Oil of New Jersey. Perhaps we need others to weigh in with their opinions on the proper course to be pursued.Dandlyin (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. What does everyone else think? Plazak (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

We follow the RS and they say it was dissolved: 1) Isham, The Dissolution of the Standard Oil Company, 1900-1912 (1935); 2) Olien (2000) " Standard Oil had been "buttressed" by dissolution"; 3) Historical Dictionary of the Petroleum Industry (2009) Page 473: "the Supreme Court ordered Standard Oil dissolved into 34 independent companies."; 4) The American Economy: A Historical Encyclopedia (2011) " By the time Standard Oil Company (New Jersey) dissolved in 1911...."; 5) Yergin The Prize: " the far-reaching implications of the break-up of Standard Oil and the resulting restructuring of the industry. Just before the dissolution...."; 6) Economics for Competition Lawyers (2011 p 448: "the Supreme Court ordered in 1911 that Standard Oil Company of New Jersey be dissolved and split into 34 companies." Rjensen (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I have provided a link to the exact wording of the Supreme Court's decision. This article clearly misstates it and the history of the original 1870 Standard Oil Co. corporation. I'm disappointed that anyone wants to keep it this way but I'm done arguing about it.Dandlyin (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules are clear: use reliable secondary sources rather than disputed primary sources like court rulings. Rjensen (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)