Talk:Standard Oil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ohio Portal

Standard Oil is part of WikiProject Ohio, which collaborates on Ohio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to current discussions.

This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] 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)

[edit] Untitled discussion

The <refs> are all within <small> tags: what's going on there then? rcrowdy

An event mentioned in this article is a May 15 selected anniversary

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Broken Cite Link

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)