Talk:John D. Rockefeller/Archive 1

Archive 1

Net Worth

How do you come up with 660 billion? Although Rockefellers net worth was most likely around 900 million at the time of his death in 1937, he was considered the first dollar billionaire with a net worth comprising up to 1.5% of US GDP. Giving Rockefeller the benefit of the doubt, 1 billion dollars in either 1911 or 1937 would be around 23 or 15 billion dollars today http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ . 1.5% of the most recent US GDP figures, ca. 14.5 trillion, is about 221.85 billion. These figures would make Rockefeller fantastically wealthy, even today. But none of them are anywhere near 660 billion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePhantomLord (talk • contribs) 22:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

There are some references here: List_of_wealthiest_historical_figures#John_D._Rockefeller --Karl.brown (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I checked those sources, but I'm still not sure how they came up with a number as high as 660 billion. For example, Forbes places Rockefeller's net worth at 1.4 billion dollars, or 1/65 of US GDP, ca. 1.53%, in 1937 http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/fortune/0702/gallery.richestamericans.fortune/index.html . However, 1.4 billion dollars in 1937 seems to be closer to 21 billion today http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi . This would make Rockefeller ca. the 20th richest person in the world today http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/#p_2_s_a0_All%20industries_All%20countries_All%20states_ .1.53% of the most optimistic US GDP figures for 2011, 15 trillion dollars according to the CIA World Fact Book https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2195.html , is nearly 230 billion. Still incredibly wealthy, but no where near 660 billion.

I don't know how these figures were arrived at, but in any case I don't think we should be doing the math ourselves- remember, no original research WP:NOR. The site here references over $660 billion: [1] and says it comes from Forbes. If you'd like to change the description to capture something like '$392-$663 billion', as is cited here List_of_wealthiest_historical_figures#John_D._Rockefeller then that would be ok. This book, from 2006, puts it at over $300 billion (and that is in 2006 dollars, so 6 years ago) [http://www.amazon.com/All-Money-World-Make-Spend-Their/dp/0307266125#reader_0307266125]. This article puts it at $336 billion: [2]. I think the best idea would be to ask the editors over at the other article on wealthiest historical figures where they got the $663 billion figure, and check the notability of the source, as it's possible the $660 billion is citogenesis: [3] --Karl.brown (talk)

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? he is so awesome because he made oil

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) [4]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[5]. 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: [6]. 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)

 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

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."  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." -  Done--Wustenfuchs 12:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

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

   "separate corporations across dozens of states,"->"dozens of separate corporations operating in just one state,"  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"  Done--Wustenfuchs 12:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

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

   "remained independent."->"remained separate companies." Independent oil companies have a different meaning - i.e., non-majors.  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.  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.  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."  Not done how? --Wustenfuchs 12:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

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

   "career in the industry"->"career in the oil industry"  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  Done--Wustenfuchs 12:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

   All done here...  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)

The French legend still cannot beat the German-American label. As France cannot produce any proof of roots, Germany can. Johann Peter Roggenfeller from Altwied (part of today's town of Neuwied, Rhineland-Palatinate), baptized on September 27th 1682 in the Lutheran church of Rengsdorf, emigrated to what would become the United States of America in 1723. He and three of his children emigrated from Bonefeld (Rengsdorf parochy in Neuwied County) and settled in Germantown, Pennsylvania. The family name Roggenfelder/Rockenfeller relates to the now deserted former village of Rockenfeld in Neuwied County; Roggen is German for rye, Feld for field. As usual, village of Rockenfeld gave the family the name, and not the other way round. In the area of Neuwied, you still find Rockenfeller families. Sources: http://longislandsurnames.com/genealogy/getperson.php?personID=I03259&tree=Woolley http://longislandsurnames.com/genealogy/getperson.php?personID=I03260&tree=Woolley http://www.rhein-zeitung.de/regionales_artikel,-Rockefeller-hatte-Neuwieder-Wurzeln-_arid,165825.html http://www.neuwied-feldkirchen.net/rockenfeld/historie/rockenfeld_historie.html Bad luck, France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.131.72.229 (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2012 (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)

Edit request on 24 April 2012

John D. Rockeffeller page.

Early life: he lived in Owego, NY and attended Owego Free Academy

local high school has always been Owego Free Academy NOT Owego Academy

74.32.101.191 (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• this suggests otherwise: [7], [8].--KarlB (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Rockefeller clearly of German descent

The name Rockefeller is from the German village of Rockenfeld (Roggenfelder/Rockenfelder) near Neuwied and Altwied. John D. Rockefeller is of German descent, neither French nor Huguenot. The family was founded by Gotthard Rockefeller (born 1590 in what is now Neuwied) and his wife Magdalena. Hyperboreer88 (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Exploration and Drilling

I am aware Rockefeller built his fortune from monopolization of the Refining industry. Standard Oil was started as a kerosene distributor. But my question, which might possibly be worked into the article is this: Did Rockefeller ever enter into drilling and exploration? 206.192.35.125 (talk) 12:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Support of Lincoln

Hi, an OTRS email questioned JDR's support of Lincoln, citing JDR's very young age when Lincoln was killed. Is there a citation for his support or could it be clarified relative to their only briefly overlapping lifespans. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Why no information about his mother? Very interesting subject

I wonder why it hasn't been pointed out that Davi(d)son is as obvious a name as Mendel-son, Aaron-son or Levi-(n)-son. Should this assumption be true, the whole dynasty of Rockefellers, would find no problem whatsoever acquiring citizenship of today's state of Israel, according to halakhic law of the talmud THUS the nation of "stateless internationals" would lose the one and only gentile scapegoat (amidst the halakha-positive Rothschilds, Morgans and Warburgs) used to prove anti-"stateless internationals"-emites wrong in their "belief" (not knowledge - emphasis) that the humanity-opressing banksters are all halakha-positive. That motif IMO needs a thorough research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.171.197.14 (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Fluff in the article

John was good at letting off steam, but he had a lot of steam to let off, and some of it, apparently, stayed inside — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.197.80 (talk) 06:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Reference Problems?

Why do most of the "reference" links in this article lead ... back to the article itself? Is "self-reference" now a Wiki standard? Doesn't that fall under the "original research" ban? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

His Father

The amount of information about William Rockefeller, Sr. in this article exceeds the amount of information in his own article. A copy and mild edit of the information and the sources to William Rockeller, Sr.'s article would be helpful. William Rockeller, Sr.'s article is so sparse that, although it mentions a scandal, and that he was a conman, it doesn't state the reason for the title, leading one to believe it might have been for his bigamy. 76.17.178.118 (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

This story lights up an extremely important point about the background in the biography of Rockefeller. Moreover, his personal antagonist Pulitzer was not mentioned in the article till then at all. Pulitzer pursued a campaign against the power and the influence of Rockefeller in the American economy and politics. This is an important point of view about the development of the American society in the late 19th and the early 20th century. I hold this aspect from the life of this man for indispensable. Tri-l (talk) 06:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I added some of the info on Bill from this article into his own. You're welcome :) XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Requesting re-protection

Since the article was made available for non-registered users to edit, I've noticed that it has been disruptively edited and even vandalized and blanked. Can someone please re-protect the article? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested. Coretheapple (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Tiptoey granted one-year protection, which should take care of things. Coretheapple (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2014

There is a part of the page where it says "blacked off", when it should be "backed off" 78777x (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC) 78777x (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)  Done Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2014

I can find no references online to the 600 billion+ figure online that this article cites, only sites that use this article (leading to a vicious circle).

I have found two reputable sources that estimate Rockefellers wealth by today's standards from Forbes(http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/14/richest-americans-alltime-biz_cx_pw_as_0914ialltime_slide_2.html?thisSpeed=undefined) and Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/richest-people-in-history-2010-8#1-john-d-rockefeller-20)referencing Forbes and the author who did the estimate.

A figure of 336 Billion would be more accurate.

99.235.218.239 (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Done Mz7 (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Religion and Business Success Neutrality

In the 4th paragraph, it talks about him being very active in his church, as well as a very religious man. However, the following sentence begins with "On the other hand". This is implying that business and religion are often mutually exclusive, and business goes against religion. This should either be made a new paragraph, or connected in a more non-biased way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.121.33.54 (talk) 02:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• I have removed the "on the other hand" part. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Great-grandson John Davison "Jay" Rockefeller IV

In the Marriage and Family section you should restate one sentence to say : "Great-grandson John Davison "Jay" Rockefeller IV served as a Democratic US Senator from West Virginia (1985-2015)" ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cprystal (talk • contribs) 22:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Done -- Tri-l (talk) 07:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

His wealth

$1.4 billion in 1937 is equivalent to about $23 billion today. Not any of the other, much higher figures cited in this article. $900 million in 1913 is equivalent to about $21.5 billion today.

In the article, we have lines like "Adjusting for inflation, his fortune upon his death in 1937 stood at $336 billion". That is not true. Not even close. The article goes on to say "accounting for more than 1.5% of the national economy,". Now, if you take 1.5% of the US economy today you get about $255 billion, but this number is utterly meaningless. The US has far more people in it today than it did back then, for example. If Bill Gates moved to New Zealand he'd be worth a big chunk of their economy -- but wouldn't be any richer.

So, let's stop this utter nonsense that Rockefeller was worth hundreds of billions, based on this concept of calculating his wealth as a percentage of the national economy at the time and then scaling it up to today. Inflation is the only real indicator. The claims that he was worth hundreds of billions must be deleted permanently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.202.203.244 (talk) 11:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2015

. "His father was of English and German descent while his mother was of Scots-Irish descent."

Rockefeller Father was not Of English and german decent. He was of French Huguenot decent which families escaped through England and Germany then to the Americas.

Tonysarver (talk) 14:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for that? The article appears to have a source (Chernow) for its current language, but the placement of the inline reference is unclear. I will see if I can check Chernow, but meanwhile, some sourcing would be needed one way or the other. Coretheapple (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The Chernow book substantiates what is in the article currently, at least as far as German descent is concerned. I am not seeing "German and English" but perhaps that is mentioned elsewhere. It says reports of French ancestry are incorrect. Coretheapple (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:John D. Rockefeller/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Existing content is good. Article could use a bit more length, and more reference citations. Badbilltucker 14:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 14:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

influenced by Swami Vivekananda?

Under the Philanthropy section we have:

"He was influenced by a meeting with Swami Vivekananda, who urged him to use more of his philanthropy to help the poor and distressed people"

"Influenced" implies that there was a discernible difference in Rockefeller's behavior after he met Vivekananda in 1893. But what was it? By 1893, Rockefeller had already been a major philanthropist for many years. The statement has 2 refs, one a book, and the other online. The text of the online ref only says that the Swami spoke to Rockefeller. On the other hand, Ron Chernow's exhaustive 700+ page biography of Rockefeller does not even mention the Swami. You have to suspect that the Swami's biographers may be puffing up his importance. If he did indeed influence Rockefeller, the article should be more specific as to how Rockefeller acted differently afterward. Plazak (talk) 02:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2016

There is a typo in the paragraph about Standard Oil being under stress. 1770 should be 1870

162.72.214.168 (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

How is it still a good article?

????Ernio48 (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

If you have any specific concerns about prose, sourcing, breadth of coverage, neutrality, article stability, or image use per WP:Good article criteria, please state them. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Net worth. Afterall, that's the main reason behind his notoriety and somehow it isn't properly discussed/sourced.Ernio48 (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2016

In the rumors section, there is an additional ¨as¨ in this sentence : At the height of Rockefeller's power as monopolist there began rumors that the family guards as an "embarrassing secret".

Mat967 (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Done -- Dane2007 ^talk 01:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2016

Please change (In 1884, Rockefeller provided major funding for a college in Atlanta for African-American women, which became Spelman College (named for Rockefeller's in-laws who were ardent abolitionists before the Civil War).[102] The oldest existing building on Spelman's campus, Rockefeller Hall, is named after him.[103] Rockefeller also gave considerable donations to Denison University[104] and other Baptist colleges.) to (In 1884, Rockefeller provided major funding for Atlanta Baptist Female Seminary in Atlanta for African-American women, which became Spelman College. [102] His wife Laura Spelman Rockefeller, was dedicated to civil rights and equality for women . John and Laura donated money and supported the Atlanta Baptist Female Seminary whose mission was in line with their faith based beliefs. Today known as Spelman College, an all women Historical Black College or University <HBCU> in Atlanta, GA., named after Laura’s family. The Spelman Family, Rockefeller's in-laws, along with John Rockefeller were ardent abolitionists before the Civil War and were dedicated to supporting the Underground Railroad . John Rockefeller was impressed by the vision of the school and removed the debt from the school. The oldest existing building on Spelman's campus, Rockefeller Hall, is named after him.[103] Rockefeller also gave considerable donations to Denison University[104] and other Baptist colleges.) Kiara.williams31 (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Agree. Andrew Sledd (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Done  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  05:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2017 - Grammar error in page John D. Rockefeller

Under the heading "Strike of 1913–14 and the Ludlow Massacre," the word "strikebreakers" within the first paragraph is lowercase while at the start of the sentence.

Exact context: "...but the majority honored it. strikebreakers (called "scabs") were threatened..." 155.92.104.122 (talk) 05:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Done Gulumeemee (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John D. Rockefeller. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031031061637/http://www.cpu.edu.ph/centennial/echo/no_1/page12.htm to http://www.cpu.edu.ph/centennial/echo/no_1/page12.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722233117/http://www.cpu.edu.ph/infocen/October05.htm to http://www.cpu.edu.ph/infocen/October05.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Etymology of Name Wrong

"Rockefeller" derives from "Rockenfeld", which was first mentioned in the late 13th c. as "Rukenvelt", referring not to a skirt or dress (Rock) but to a ridge (Rücken). Thus "distaff field" is either folk etymology or someone's sad idea of a joke, and needs to be changed. (See the German-language pages for verification) 98.118.17.72 (talk) 18:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Corrected as requested. There is no source currently, so any restore should require a source. — kashmiri ^TALK 16:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on John D. Rockefeller. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111006092845/http://www.xtimeline.com/evt/view.aspx?id=50560 to http://www.xtimeline.com/evt/view.aspx?id=50560
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511095809/http://www.counterpunch.org/sharon05082008.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/sharon05082008.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040220010424/http://www.history.rochester.edu/fuels/tarbell/main.htm to http://www.history.rochester.edu/fuels/tarbell/MAIN.HTM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

His wealth

Why does this article, among others, compare net worth to GDP in a year? Net worth is a stock concept, and GDP is a flow concept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shovangupta (talk • contribs) 13:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

$1.4 billion in 1937 is equivalent to about $23 billion today. Not any of the other, much higher figures cited in this article. $900 million in 1913 is equivalent to about $21.5 billion today.

In the article, we have lines like "Adjusting for inflation, his fortune upon his death in 1937 stood at $336 billion". That is not true. Not even close. The article goes on to say "accounting for more than 1.5% of the national economy,". Now, if you take 1.5% of the US economy today you get about $255 billion, but this number is utterly meaningless. The US has far more people in it today than it did back then, for example. If Bill Gates moved to New Zealand he'd be worth a big chunk of their economy -- but wouldn't be any richer.

So, let's stop this utter nonsense that Rockefeller was worth hundreds of billions, based on this concept of calculating his wealth as a percentage of the national economy at the time and then scaling it up to today. Inflation is the only real indicator. The claims that he was worth hundreds of billions must be deleted permanently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.159.167 (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure where or how you deduced that, but Business Insider gives $336 billion (obviously adjusted for inflation) while Forbes says his net worth was $305.3 billion in 2006 dollars. Both are highly respected publications for business and financial reports. I suppose the question is whether one is more credible than the other. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You're not sure how I deduced it? Did you read what I wrote? I explained quite clearly how I deduced it. $1.4 billion in 1937 is $23 billion today, adjusted for inflation. I explained how the (wrong) figures of hundreds of billions were arrived at. It is a clear case of (not particularly credible) online news sources being wrong. The article should be changed. 110.175.159.167 (talk) 09:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The above comment is a good example of a know-it-all who knows nothing. There are multiple ways to try to convert the value of money in one period for another; a simple inflation adjustment is not the only and probably not the best. Bill Gates is small potatoes from a historical perspective. There have been many far richer people in history. How much was a Roman Emperor worth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:6044:A600:C55C:8060:5B3D:B516 (talk) 06:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to the figure you gave. It's not like inflation methods are common knowledge or anything. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

So are we going to remove the lies posted on the page about his wealth? 110.175.159.167 (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

First, I'm not sure where the $1.4 billion number comes from. Second, two of the cited sources give his wealth in modern terms as $192 billion and $323 billion, so perhaps we should be giving a range of estimated numbers. Third, it is not at all clear that the high numbers are derived from applying Rockefeller's percentage of the US economy to the current US economy; the percentage seems to be an aside, and not the method upon which the calculation was based. We should be hesitant to disregard the numbers given by usually reliable sources. Plazak (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The $1.4 billion number comes from what his wealth was in 1937, according to this article. It is quite simple to adjust this for inflation, to see what it would be worth today -- Google "inflation calculator". It is obvious how these publications, if you could call them that, got the staggering figures of his wealth -- they simply took 1.5% of the economy today, and put that as the number. Forbes is not a reliable source, anybody can contribute and it has no central editorial board. Similarly with Business Insider. We MUST remove these erroneous claims about his wealth. Let me quote from the article: Adjusting for inflation, his fortune upon his death in 1937 stood at $336 billion. This is quite clearly WRONG. His wealth in 1937 was $1.4 billion, and that is NOT $336 billion adjusted for inflation. At the very least, we must remove this lie. 110.175.159.167 (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

let me add this: here's a forbes source saying his wealth would be $30 billion adjusted for inflation, NOT $100B +: http://www.forbes.com/profile/rockefeller/. heres another forbes article saying that TO CONTROL A SIMILAR SHARE OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMY his net worth would have to be $300B + . this is not the same as adjusting for inflation. http://www.forbes.com/sites/carlodonnell/2014/07/11/the-rockefellers-the-legacy-of-historys-richest-man/#45befed860e7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.159.167 (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I modified the page to include both definitions. I used the autoupdating template I found here. There seems to be some legitimate concerns with using CPI to adjust for inflation for wealthy individuals. The discussion on the talk page of the template made me think that it was okay for now since according to one user the correlation is .99 (hopefully they add a template to adjust for capital inflation in the future). I hope I didn't go over anyone's head here but I wanted the page to be clear on the different ways to think of his wealth. Emschorsch (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for at least doing *something*. That's a really good start. I think it's still going to have to be improved though. Putting the two definitions next to each other without explanation is a bit jarring. Do we have any reason at all to believe that the $200 billion + estimates are anything but misguided bullshit based on the percent of GDP figure? I don't think we do.

Here's an economist commenting on this issue specifically. http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=32828 He also concurs with the $24 billion estimate. I think we should says something like "His inflation adjusted wealth was $24 billion, but a modern American who controlled as large a fraction of the US economy as Rockefeller did in 1937 would own some $336 billion today." Qupope (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2018

Hawke's biography, John D, 1980 p 26 provides more insight into the startup capital of Rockefeller and Clark's commission house. Clark initiated the idea of the partnership and offered $2,000 towards the goal. Rockefeller had only $800 saved up at the time and so borrowed $1,000 from his father, "Big Bill" Rockefeller, at 10 percent interest. In the "Pre-Standard Oil career" Section, under the "Business partnership and Civil War service" sub-section, after the first sentence, "In 1859, Rockefeller went into the produce commission business with a partner, Maurice B. Clark, and they raised $4,000 ($135,644 in 2023 dollars) in capital," I would add the following: "Clark initiated the idea of the partnership and offered $2,000 towards the goal. Rockefeller had only $800 saved up at the time and so borrowed $1,000 from his father, "Big Bill" Rockefeller, at 10 percent interest." Smellyshirt5 (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Duplicate of the other requests. ToThAc (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

This request is in regards to the startup capital of Rockefeller's first company, stressing that he borrowed money from his father. It has nothing to do with my other requests.smellyshirt5 (talk) 9:53 PM edt, 18 October 2018

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. RudolfRed (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Done:The change has been made. I don't know if someone else wants to remove this or follow some other protocol.Smellyshirt5 (talk) 03:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2018

Hawke's biography, John D., 1980 pp 22-23 provide more information on the wages that John D. Rockefeller drew while being employed at Hewitt & Tuttle. It also describes the business skills John D. gained at this first employment that were different from the skills he learned from his father or from Folsom's Commercial College. In the "Pre-Standard Oil career" section under the "As a bookeeper" sub-section, after the sentence, "He was particularly adept at calculating transportation costs, which served him well later in his career," I would add the following: "Much of Rockefeller's duties involved negotiating with barge canal owners, ship captains, and freight agents. In these negotiations, he learned that posted transportation rates that were believed to be fixed could be altered depending on conditions and timing of freight and through the use of rebates to preferred shippers. Rockefeller was also given the duties of collecting debts when Hewitt instructed him to do so. Instead of using his father's method of presence to collect debts, Rockefeller relied on more of a pestering approach." I would then remove the last sentence, "Making 50 cents a day, the full salary for his first three months' work was $50 (equivalent to $1,635 in 2023 dollars).", and substitute it with, "Rockefeller received $16 a month for his three month apprenticeship. During his first year, he received $31 a month, which was increased to $50 a month. His final year provided him $58 dollars a month." Smellyshirt5 (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Duplicated request. ToThAc (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

This request is not a duplicate of either of the other two of mine. This request clarifies Rockefeller's personal income in his first 3 years of employment before he started his first business. Smellyshirt5 (talk) 9:57pm edt, 18 October 2018

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. RudolfRed (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Done:The change has been made. I don't know if someone else wants to remove this or follow some other protocol.Smellyshirt5 (talk) 03:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2018

It appears that more background can be added to describe and clarify the nature of the switch from profits in the produce commission business to the oil business during Rockefeller's early career. See Hawke's biography, John D., pp. 29,31-32,36. Specifically, Hawke notes that in their first and second years of business, Clark & Rockefeller netted $4,400 (on nearly half a million dollars in business) and $17,000 worth of profit, respectively, and that their profits soared with the outbreak of the Civil War when the Union Army called for massive amounts of food and supplies. When the Civil War was nearing a close and with the prospect of those profits ending, Clark & Rockefeller looked towards the refining of crude oil into kerosene.

Specifically, in the "Pre-Standard Oil career" section under the "Business partnership and Civil War service" subsection, after the second sentence of the first paragraph, "Rockefeller went steadily ahead in business from there, making money each year of his career.", I would ADD, "In their first and second years of business, Clark & Rockefeller netted $4,400 (on nearly half a million dollars in business) and $17,000 worth of profit, respectively, and their profits soared with the outbreak of the Civil War when the Union Army called for massive amounts of food and supplies. When the Civil War was nearing a close and with the prospect of those war-time profits ending, Clark & Rockefeller looked toward the refining of kerosene."

Additional context can be provided about the price of crude oil versus refined oil. The second paragraph of the "Business partnership and Civil War service" sub-section seems to imply the federal government was subsidizing all forms of oil during this period, but Hawk 1980 p. 32 indicates that the federal government during the Civil War levied a tax of twenty cents a gallon on the REFINED product. Hawke 1980 argues that refined oil was profitable despite the heavy government levy and freight transportation costs. I would ADD a third paragraph to the subsection "Business partnership and Civil War service" which states the following: "A market existed for the refined oil in the form of kerosene. Coal had previously been used to extract kerosene, but its tedious extraction process and high price prevented broad use. Even with the high costs of freight transportation and a government levy during the Civil War (the government levied a tax of twenty cents a gallon on refined oil), profits on the refined product were large. The price of the refined oil in 1863 was around $13 a barrel, with a profit margin of around $5 to $8 dollars a barrel. The capital expenditures for a refinery at that time were small - around $1,000 to $1,500 and requiring only a few men to operate. Smellyshirt5 (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. RudolfRed (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Done:The change has been made. I don't know if someone else wants to remove this or follow some other protocol.Smellyshirt5 (talk) 03:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2019

The quote "I would have taken no action. I would have deplored the necessity which compelled the officers of the company to resort to such measures to supplement the State forces to maintain law and order." is attributed to John D. Rockefeller, but should be attributed to his son John D. Rockefeller Junior as seen in the cited source. SpiderSutra (talk) 07:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Monetary pedantry

His personal wealth, 900 million in 1913, more than 2% of US GDP of 39.1 billion that year was worth 21 billion dollars in 2016 adjusted for inflation (by 1937 the Rockefeller fortune was 1.4 billion or 1.5% of GDP of 92 billion he was also an nba champion).

In my opinion, every monetary figure given in this sentence should either have the symbol '$' or the word 'dollars'.

For consistency, I would remove the word 'dollars' and add a $ sign to all five monetary figures.

But I'll leave this for others to arbitrate and possibly enact.

I do understand that the implied unit is locally bound, but this kind of sloppiness eventually bleeds into giving annualized figures with "per year" component completely implicit. (Rare is the reader who quickly grasps that a national debt hovering around 75% of GDP equates to nine months of domestic production.)

Nip it in the bud is my prescription. — MaxEnt 14:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Apology in advance for putting this in the wrong place—not a regular editor, the section “Legacy” is locked, and I can’t even figure out how it make a new section here...but also on money (wealth subheading of Legacy): Gates/Walton (+Bezos, Koch Brothers) fortunes do “come close” as a % of GDP since they are well within an order of magnitude—if Forbes is correct to list them (each of those four individuals or families) at around $100B and GDP is $20T, then each is approx 0.5% of GDP.

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2019

It says that Rockefeller and Clarke's venture made $4400 in profit and $1700, respectively..... what the fuck does that mean? That isn't how the word "respectively" works. There's no "before or after" statement to insert a "respectively". 2001:569:BCB0:8900:5862:69EB:D45A:9C15 (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

"Much of Rockefeller's duties involved negotiating with barge canal owners, ship captains, and freight agents." - He was 17 years old. The next sentence explains how he learned a lot, but this one needs a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BCB0:8900:5862:69EB:D45A:9C15 (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what fucking changes you want made. Please make a request that proposes a specific change. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2019

Change the two archaic hyphenated instances of the word "anti-trust" to its contemporary spelling "antitrust." The other five instances of the word use the correct contemporary spelling. Competitionlawnerd (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

John D. Rockefeller's children

The children listed are not, in fact, his children. His real children are John D. Rockefeller Jr, Edith Rockefeller McCormick, Elizabeth (Bessie) Rockefeller Strong, Alice Rockefeller, and Alta Rockefeller Prentice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.207.241 (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

All of them are already listed. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2019

I woul;d like to add more information Eyeballer corrector01 (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. aboideau^talk 16:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Photo used twice with two different years

Photo at top of article says 1885, but in article same photo used again with different coloring and says "around 1900". Zelmerszoetrop (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Net worth contradiction

"His peak net worth was estimated at US$418 billion (in 2019 dollars; inflation-adjusted) in 1913. His personal wealth, $900 million in 1913, more than 2% of US GDP of $39.1 billion that year was worth 21 billion dollars in 2016 adjusted for inflation (by 1937 the Rockefeller fortune was 1.4 billion or 1.5% of GDP of 92 billion)."

His net worth was 418 billion. Then, it's just 21 billion in the next sentence. What's the difference? Sherwilliam (talk) 05:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Add a citation to the GDP

How do I add a citation for the claim that Rockefeller's GDP was more than Bill Gates? The citation is here. Looks like the article is locked?

Betterworldbiker1 (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Photo of John D Rockefeller.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

"Rumors" section in Personal life

This is a bit odd. The wording is confusing and sensationalist. There appears to be only one "rumor", that his father contracted a bigamous marriage, which is already covered in the Early life section. I don't actually think the section adds anything to the article and propose to combine it into the Early life part unless there are any objections. KJP1 (talk) 08:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree, this doesn't need a "rumours" section. If there's reliable sourcing for this material it can be included in Early Life as you suggest. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree, we follow the recent reliable sources. Rjensen (talk) 10:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Y - Done. Hope everyone's ok with it. KJP1 (talk) 09:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

sources

sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.252.78 (talk) 13:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Add Cultural Depiction Request

Someone please add that Rockefeller is depicted in "Our Nation's 200th Birthday, The Telephone's 100th Birthday" by Stanley Meltzoff for Bell System? https://www.jklmuseum.com/tag/stanley-meltzoff/ 47.152.71.253 (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Cite error

There is an undefined refname in the lede. The original reference was removed in this edit], and marked it as an unreliable source.
The following:
<ref name="history.com1"/>
should be replaced with a {{citation needed}} tag.
Thanks ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm now autoconfirmed and so have made the change. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2022

Could someone revert this edit please [9]? This edit directly contradicts the sources present supporting his net worth and appears to be original research. I think this also addresses the issues raised by the other IP above. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 10:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2022

204.126.156.56 (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC) je trouvr mathis tanent

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 18:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Inflation-adjusted net worth calculation doesn't appear to be correct.

The beginning of the article states:

"His personal wealth was estimated in 1913 at $900 million, which was almost 3% of the US GDP of $39.1 billion that year. That was his peak net worth, and amounts to US$423 billion (in 2020 dollars; inflation-adjusted)." 900 millions are 2,3% of 39.1 billion. So in 2021 (US gdp 23Trillion) wealth equivalent to 529 billion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.227.228.125 (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Later under the section "Wealth", the inflation-adjusted net worth of 900 million is listed as 23.5 billion.

"His personal wealth was 900 million in 1913 worth 23.5 billion dollars adjusted for inflation in 2020."

The latter calculation is probably more correct. Based on the Consumer Price Index total inflation factor since 1913 is about 26.85x.

Thus $900,000,000 × 26.85 = $24,165,000,000

I'm making the correction now.Ordinary Person (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

References

You ignore the other factor - percentage of GDP and base your conclusion only on half of that first quote... This way you (and the editor who inserted the second quote in the wealth section) are doing (bad) original research and making a claim which doesn't correspond to the sourced link. You skip the GDP part and only convert $900 mills to today USD. The process should be more like this:

get the share of his wealth in the 1913 GDP -> calculate the absolute amount of USD which make the same share of 2007 GDP (year in the source) -> take 2007-20** inflation into account.

The inflation info which was in the brackets was not about the "1913 - now" inflation. Either leave what source says or remove the source if you think it's incorrect.

Current statement makes him look like an average irrelevant half-assed tycoon from my irrelevant country. And that makes this article silly.

Questions about this fella's "adjusted" wealth make a large percent of this talk page content and it's always because of this same mistake. There is a dude (in archives) who claimed that percentage of GDP is non-sense and that e.g. Bill Gates' wealth would be the same if he moved to New Zealand (much smaller GDP than USA). That claim actually is a non-sense - if you have more money relative to others, you have more power, wealth or whatever you want to call it (even with same absolute amount of money). --109.165.140.224 (talk) 12:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2022

Mary Harris Jones Union Organizer

Delete: Schoolteacher SFmovieafficionado (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Her career was Union Organizer Not Schoolteacher. SFmovieafficionado (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page John D. Rockefeller. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. If I am missing something here, please reopen the request (edit this section and change "yes" to "no" in the request template) and clarify your request. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 01:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2022

Could someone revert this edit [10] which seems to have replaced the sourced estimate of his net worth with WP:OR. The source directly next to this statement supports a value of ~ 300 billion, not 24 billion. Another IP raised issues with this edit in the section "Inflation-adjusted net worth calculation doesn't appear to be correct." above. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 11:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC) 192.76.8.85 (talk) 11:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

It is more complicated than that. There appear to be two ways of calculating. One way is to do inflation adjustment, and then you get to 20+ billion like here. The other is to take his share of the US GDP, and then multiply that share against the current GDP. In the second way of calculating you get to 300+ billion as in this source. You may want to discuss this in List of wealthiest historical figures. --Mvqr (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Modern net worth wrong

Net worth in modern dollars doesn’t match source. 2600:1700:3568:940:4056:EAFC:D736:18CB (talk) 00:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

In the Beginning…oil business section

…it says "it was the largest oil refinery in the world." But this is after the words "two refineries”. Which one? Or should it say "largest oil refiner"? Boscaswell talk 20:13, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Philanthropy

Touched by the work of French scientist Louis Pasteur, he financed in 1912 the purchase of the House of Louis Pasteur in Dole where Pasteur was born in 1822, to make it a museum, inaugurated in 1923. SylviePasteurise (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

https://www.pasteurbrewing.com/wp-content/uploads/NYTimes-RockefellerMadeThePasteurOffer.pdf SylviePasteurise (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Biased source

The author of the source "Myth of the Robber Barons" has a very explicit anti-regulatory bias in their work and it reflects in several of the chosen quotes, for example: "The government subsidised the price of oil, causing it to increase from $.5 to $13.5", the reasoning of which is not obvious. I suggest these be neutralised somewhat to include less controversial reasonings. 90.247.213.117 (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)