Talk:Robber baron (industrialist)

Dummy section heading
The use of the word "allegedly" is necessary to make it clear that some businessmen called "robber barons" did not, on examination, use tactics different from those who did not receive the label.
 * I accept that "allegedly" could have been applied to others (on the specifics of your argument, so you're only a criminal if convicted?). However, the term does not work as a qualifier, because using it means that any application of the term was either unfounded or frivolous. IMHO using this term would be POV. My revision takes a "it was perceived" line. 203.198.237.30 08:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The term "allegedly" as it was used in the context was clearly employed to discredit the entire idea of industrial robber barons in American history and represented what appears to be a politically motivated point of view. Indeed the entire first paragraph read like a politically motivated attempt to descredit a concept that has been conventionally accepted in American history and vernacular. Given that there is a subsequent paragraph that presents the "other point of view," there is no reason not to provide an accurate description in the first paragraph of what the terms means, what it describes, and how it has been used in American history and culture.

I cleaned up the first paragraph and added more substantive information about what the term has been applied to. As it stood, many of the most exploitative practices were left out, in an apparent attempt to make the term seem ridiculous. Concomitantly, the paragraph that "defends" the robber barons against the term only discusses Rockefeller and similarly leaves out some of the more notorious and egregious figures who have been viewed as robber barons (like Fisk, Gould, Vanderbilt).

Even with my edits, this article still reads more like a contemporary right wing defense of capitalism, than an attempt to describe the business practices of the late 19th and early 20th century, along with describing the meaning and use of the term robber baron. I would say this article is very much not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.60.55.211 (talk) 01:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Business magnate, Entrepreneur, Industrialist...and others
There is substantial overlap between Business magnate, Entrepreneur, Industrialist and Robber baron (industrialist). Any thoughts on a possible merger, if not of articles, then at least of the redundant concepts and content which appears across these articles? Should one of these be the "main" article on the subject matter? I personally think "yes", but there does not seem to be a strong contender. There is businessperson (currently a mere substub), but the term lacks the connotations invoked by industrialist/magnate/mogul/tycoon etc. 203.198.237.30 03:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Merger of Industralist into Business Magnate now proposed. 203.198.237.30 03:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a source for the "minor fractions" of their wealth comment? I'd imagine some gave more than others. I also question the inclusion of the "common good". Perhaps adding a "perceived" to the sentence? --24.154.234.132 01:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Term industrialist has nothing to do with Business Magnate. There's very little citation or backup proof to your claims.Danceking5 (talk) 07:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Delisted Good Article
There are no references, and the article is not particularly comprehensive. Pointlessness 20:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Instances of bad behavior
This article desperately needs concrete examples of the kind of brutish and/or illegal behavior which warranted this kind of label.

1830s study
Does anybody have anymore information about the study of 303 executives? I can't find any source cited in Howard Zinn's book. 66.193.220.126 17:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that statistic is at least out of place. If anybody wants to analyze "the american dream," a link to that article would be sufficient. I am removing it. If someone wants to restore it, find it's actual source, and add a counter example to balance it. Confounded bridge 16:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)confoundedbridge

Why isn't J.P. Morgan in the list? And Mellon?
He's mentioned in the article, but not in the list. And what about Mellon?

As mentioned below, what list? If/When it comes back, might it include Jay Gould, "Big" Jim Fisk, Daniel Drew and Andrew Carnegie? I agree on excluding Henry Ford, anti-Semite though he was. At one point, did he not raise all of his employees' wages based on increased profits/decreased overhead on the Model T? Put him on the "kook" list for having said "History is bunk," but leave him off the robber baron list, when there is one.

Terry J. Carter (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Who on earth is this Sidener guy?
Someone should probably take this off once they've check it out, though I'm pretty certain it's a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flankergeek (talk • contribs) 19:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Henry Ford?
I can agree with every name on this list except Henry Ford. When was Ford called a "Robber Baron?" By whom? In what context? Ford was actually considered to be quite progressive during the era when the last of the Robber Barons reigned. The Five-Dollar-Day was the epitome of progressive business-labor relations (even if the Sociological Department wasn't). And when Ford did become a tight-fisted, public-be-damned, despicable tycoon calling him a "Robber Baron" would be passé. Indeed, at the time that Ford was this way, Matthew Josephson was using the term to describe men that were by then dead a generation. Wealth alone is not a criterion for inclusion on this list.

I say Ford should be deleted from the list. --RedJ 17 00:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not think Henry Ford should be deleted from this list. I do not think the criterion for being a robber baron is strictly economics but also sociological. I think the negative sociological impacts Henry Ford's philosophical vies had with respect to ethnic populations and favoring some groups over others (because he had the economic clout to dictate these things) still affects the Detroit Area and the US auto industry today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpeach2 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think there is a complete misunderstanding of what the term means if you are including Ford. Ford was anti-semitic...there is no doubt about that.  But in terms of his business practices both within his company and with the competition he was incredibly progressive (for a business man).  Most of the benefits of the labor movement were negotiated and agreed to first with Ford.  He contributed lots to the communities, charities and educational institutions all the time.  Robber Barron's were so described because of the way they bent both public and private institutions to their will and ruthlessly destroyed or swallowed the competition.  Was he influential and used his clout in the Detroit area to have influence.  Yes.  In comparison to say JP Morgan (who just swallowed up Bear Stearns today)...was he anywhere close in business practices and was he ever referred to back then as such.  No...there is no historical record or justification of that.--Thehighlndr (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * somebody tried to add Ford today without reading this page so I deleted Ford.Rjensen (talk) 05:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

List?
There doesn't appear to be a list of alleged robber barons on this page. Apparently it used to be a lot longer.What's up with that?74.61.22.248 (talk) 02:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Bernie Madoff
Although Madoff was a criminal, he was not a robber baron. He did not live in the 19th century, nor did he create nor control any business monopolies. Does anyone have a counter argument to keep him on the list? 65.30.180.228 (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Remove Brackets (Industrialist)
I think you guys should remove the brackets industrialist. The term industrialist just refers to a controlling person, like a director or officer of an industrial company. It actually has nothing to do with this smoke and mirrors stuff. It might sound like it does, because it sounds like "Capitalist", but it's essentially just a manager with stake.Danceking5 (talk) 07:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Idem. AdjectivesAreBad (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Bill Gates
Business Week's Robert Kuttner thinks so.--177.19.67.101 (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I Found an Accessible Reference [4]
Reference 4 on the article is for some reason inacessible through Goggle Books (even though it's supposed to be free), so I found another website where the source can be viewed for free, but I don't know how to edit the article to properly include the website: http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.b000556457?urlappend=%3Bseq=1013 (p979) If anyone can include this in the reference on the article, please do so. Thank you, 27.99.9.171 (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

POV rhetoric of the term is central to its meaning and use
"Robber Baron" Is not a technical term applied by economic historians. It is a high octane heavily charged rhetorical POV term of hate and fear designed and used by opponents of the group. The Article therefore should cover the rhetorical dimensions. That's what makes the Stanford University case so interesting, on whether to use "Robber baron" as an official mascot. This Was not a trivial exercise, it was a serious presentation by concerned students, and concerned administrators. The name of of teams mascot is used many times in publicity, newspaper accounts broadcasting, and appears on banners and sweatshirts. The use of "Redskin" for another example is highly controversial and politically charged. One editor thinks it's all trivial what Stanford University does.... That totally misses the rhetorical dimension of the term. Outside of the rhetoric, there really isn't much to the term robber baron. Rjensen (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You're making counter-historic claims. The main thing about robber barons was their systematic creation of monopolies, and the creeping way they created further monopolies. A lot of the anti-monopoly legislation that exists is because of the actions of Robber Barons. Once you have a monopoly in one market, it's much easier to create monopolies in related markets. This is incredibly anticompetitive.


 * For a modern example, Microsoft wasn't allowed to extend their operating system monopoly into web browsers and web servers due to the hard won lessons from the late 19th century. I mean they didn't invent web browsers, they didn't necessarily have the best web browsers, but by giving them away for free and bundling them with their operating system they could potentially take over the web market entirely... and then start charging whatever they wanted for web servers, and they would be able to because they would control the standards. They weren't allowed to do that because of the lessons from this earlier era.


 * As to this example of a sports team, the principle is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a usage or jargon guide. An article on robber barons is about monopolistic robber barons not sports team names. It's not sufficient nor relevant that they tried to use this as name.GliderMaven (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My point is that the term is a rhetorical one, and it's rhetorical usage is therefore prime importance. The article is actually not about economic history or business, it's about how different writers over the last 150 years have condemned certain businessmen for their unethical behavior. It shows a highly polemical cartoon about Rockefeller, but never says a word about His actual business behavior-- that is covered in quite different articles.   You're mixing it up with "monopolist" Which is indeed a technical term in economic history.  Look at the words: the term "robber," directly states criminal activity, added to "Baron" Which refers to European aristocracy Of the sort that is unacceptable in the American Republic. That = highly charged rhetoric. The term "robber baron" is applied to individuals (a "baron" is always a person), and not usually to corporations like Microsoft. Rjensen (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Even by your own argument the use of the term applied to a Stanford sports team in 1970 is not highly charged rhetoric, they are not a robber barons at best it's mild satire; and per WP:TRIVIA this material cannot be merged anywhere into the rest of the article, and hence it shouldn't be in the article.GliderMaven (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * team mascots are often nasty killers like sharks or lions or gators. Nice guys (sheep for example) are seldom chosen.  It's the Stanford president who rejected the term as too highly charged because it's too close to the truth (Stanford funded the school back in 1890.) The point is that the term remains controversial--eg Bernie Sanders uses it as part of a very serious campaign right now. I'll add a cite to that effect. Rjensen (talk) 02:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * So what? That's still just about Stanford University, not about robber barons. We know nothing more about robber barons having read it, only about the various sensitivies of Stanford's administration.GliderMaven (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Also you're wrong in a different sense, the article isn't about the term, it's about robber barons. So the fact that somebody used the term to try to name their team is doubly irrelevant.GliderMaven (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * no. Apart from the very first sentence, the text and illustrations are chiefly about the term--who coined it, when, & disputes about it. Note that no monopolies are named and no monopolistic actions of any sort are ever mentioned.  Rjensen (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes. The article is badly written, and start-class, and the presence of off-topic trivia is further evidence of this, the article doesn't follow the norms of Wikipedia. WP:TRIVIA condemns trivia sections such as this, the section is a WP:COATRACK to insert irrelevant information.GliderMaven (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The Stanford item is clearly on-topic. Is it "trivia" -- no, it shows hoe the term is being debated today.  Rjensen (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Repeatedly restating a falsehood like this doesn't make it true.
 * Also, 'today'?? This happened back in 1970.
 * And this claim is supported by an amazingly reliable, highly prestigious source of international importance 'The Spokane Daily Chronicle'. Not exactly the New York Times is it?GliderMaven (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes it is a prestigious reliable source = Associated Press. You must read more closely.  I replaced it with a scholarly article from the leading academic journal in California which validates its importance in history.  Rjensen (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was unreferenced, I said it was trivia. Trivia is something that nobody reading the article will need to know- it adds nothing useful to the main topic. The person reading it knows absolutely nothing further about robber barons. That some students once implied that somebody who funded Stanford may (or may not) have been a robber baron is not a notable opinion; they are not experts, they did not write a book, and those (very few) journalists that covered it were not experts either. It is the silliest most useless type of information. Either merge it into the rest of the article or delete it.GliderMaven (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * trivia says who--says one anonymous wiki editor? It is not trivia according to a leading scholarly journal as cited.  The point is that the Stanford administration decided that the term Robber Baron should not be applied. They are experts in Stanford and they did not consider the maatter trivial.  The article is largely about the negative usage of the RB term and this fits nicely for a late 20c debate Rjensen (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This is off topic,' it's important only to the university, nobody reading about robber barons gives a flying about this. The article is not about the university it's about robber barons. That a sports team was NOT called "robber baron" is absolutely irrelevant. If they were a world renowned team that were called it; that might be important to the topic, but not being called it is not notable. I mean, Wikipedia isn't named 'robber baron' either. Move it to the university page where it belongs; but presumably they've deleted it there already.GliderMaven (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand the topic. The topic is not the behavior of specific people 150 years ago, but the language of disapproval. The episode proves the term is still strong stuff -- too strong for the Stanford U administration. Rjensen (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

A "lead" is a term for the lead entry that is used by people not able to write proper encyclopedia articles
"WP:LEAD" is the term for the part of what is called the "WP:MOS" policy that is supposed to be what is called "read" and "followed" in wikipedia. Compare, and what, we may refer to as "contrast" with what may be stated as an "article" that people are revert warring to, and what the "policy" says we should, for the way, for want of a better term "lay out" the article and you may find that there is a "difference". GliderMaven (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think GliderMaven misreads the article. It is about a term of rhetorical disapproval. It is a term used only in a historical context. The lede explains that. Rjensen (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I think perhaps "rjensen" should as indicated, "read" a policy called "WP:LEAD" and "follow" it. The word "follow" is not a "term" only, it has a "meaning", just as robber baron is not simply a "term" it is also what is known as a "concept". Or if "rjensen" is "claiming" it is simply a "term", it is "unencyclopedic" and needs to be what is known as "deleted", and he/she should feel free to what is known as 'WP:AFD' it, whereas I would be "!voting" "KEEP".GliderMaven (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * the current lede states: "Robber baron" is a derogatory term of social criticism originally applied to certain wealthy and powerful 19th-century American businessmen.  That seems exactly correct and it summarizes the article in a nutshell. Rjensen (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. Since GliderMaven has not actually articulated an objection to the lead and is not attempting to have substantive discussion, I am going to remove the ugly and unnecessary tag again.  --JBL (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, you will not. The specific objection is that the lead is unencyclopedic, and furthermore it is totally transparent that Rjensen has *deliberately* written it as such, as part and parcel of his attempt to unduly emphasise his non NPOV opposition to the concept. We don't do that her, we do not foreshadow the topic in the first few sentences because it is unbalanced to do that. Whether or not it is incorrect to apply the concept to any particular person is actually irrelevant to the first paragraph, the point of the article in general, and the first few sentences of the lead in particular is to describe what the concept is and then later on in the article we describe and discuss, based on reliable sources, whether or not it maps well on to any particular person or not. The relevant policies are WP:LEAD, WP:ISNOT and WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary.GliderMaven (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Here are my suggestions to you: assume (or at least behave as if you believe) that I am a basically sensible, reasonable person, who is not interested in the details of any past disagreements you may have had. Act as if you would like to convince me to agree with you.  Express, perhaps in one or two sentences, a clear statement about what is wrong with the current lead paragraph, in a way that does not assume as context the malevolent behavior of third parties.  If the explanation is related to some wikipedia policy, give a link together with a precise statement in that policy that you think is being violated, again with one or two sentences of explanation.  Do not waste space talking about other users, about whom I know nothing and in whom I have no interest.
 * The reasons that I make these suggestions are several. I have 0 interest in you, Rjensen, and any past disagreements between the two of you.  I read the two versions of the lead, and at the moment I think the one Rjensen has put up is clearer and more to the point.  I am open to being convinced otherwise, but pure assertions that (1) I am acting in bad faith, (2) someone else is acting in bad faith, and (3) certain text violates certain policies without any explanation of the connection between the two, do not have any power to convince.  So, I suggest you try other ways of engagement with me.
 * Thanks, JBL (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The relevant policy is WP:LEAD, and virtually every other article in Wikipedia gets the format of the lead sentence correct, and this article doesn't, and you are revert warring to maintain this.GliderMaven (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You might think you are not edit warring: wrong.


 * You might think it's just a simple, "nicer", rewording of the article, this is also wrong.


 * Wikipedia has a house style, this is not the style, and there's good reasons why it isn't.


 * You might think that Rjensen is rewording it like this for balance or accuracy, but so far as I can tell, he's making a pointed edits, which violates Wikipedia's norms, as an attempt to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS that any industrialist could ever be self serving or manipulate economies or businesses for their own benefit. Hey, maybe they didn't, I kinda doubt it, but certainly, building that conclusion into the lead sentence is NOT HOW WE DO THINGS HERE. Is it really just an insulting term that offends the feelings of poor industrialists, by definition??? Because that first sentence is supposed to be defining the concept and not the term.GliderMaven (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * No, as it stands, I consider that you are edit warring, and I'm about to report you at the edit warring noticeboard. Please self revert to avoid this, and I'm not even kidding.GliderMaven (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As to the substance of this discussion: "robber baron" was a concept that was indeed widely used in the 1930s, but which the consensus of professional scholars now has discarded. The article itself makes this point:  Richard White, historian of the transcontinental railroads, says he has no use for the concept, which has been killed off by historians Robert Wiebe and Alfred Chandler. He notes that, "Much of the modern history of corporations is a reaction against the Robber Barons and fictions."[5] Note also the scholarship cited in the further reading: Cochran, Thomas C. (1949) "The Legend of the Robber Barons." Explorations in Economic History 1#5 (1949); Folsom, Burton W. (1991) The Myth of the Robber Barons: A New Look at the Rise of Big Business in America.'' I note that GliderMaven has been unable to cite any recent scholarship that supports his false assumption that the robber baron concept has been used by scholars in the last couple decades.  Rjensen (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

, since GliderMaven is not really interested in substantive discussion, I direct some comments to you about the result of your recent edits. First, is it possible to rework the lead sentence to be about the concept "robber baron" rather than the phrase? (This would definitely work better with the first quote, which refers to an idea, not a phrase.) Second, your recent edits and additions have made the lead section really, really long, particularly relative to the body. May I suggest adding additional sectioning to keep the lead a relatively brief summary of what follows? (If it helps I can attempt some concrete suggestions, let me know.) Thanks. --JBL (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * OK: good idea. I made a brief into that summarizes the issue. I used the same text but put it in chronological order with subheaders. Rjensen (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Title
This title don't make sense, it should be move into robber baron. Frenditor (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you believe the page should be moved, you should open a move request at WP:Requested moves. &mdash; Music1201  talk  00:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * the American usage was copied from the medieval German usage but applies to an entirely different phenomenon. So two distinct articles are necessary. Rjensen (talk) 01:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Systematically, relentlessly unbalanced presentation
This is disappointing; the most nakedly partisan presentation I have seen on Wikipedia, and the first to motivate me to comment. Numerous arguments and statements are presented discrediting the notion of the very concept the page is ostensibly about - with not one presentation of any reason people ever found the idea creditable. Even if it was the case that robber barons never existed, and even more unlikely, that an overwhelming modern consensus even existed as to whether they were guilty of the charges leveled against them, this one-sided presentation gives no real insight to either the term or the concept if it is unwilling to present (precisely and in their own words, as has already been done for its critics) what those who believed in it, actually believed in, and how they argued for it, and what evidence they offered. Certainly, the monopolization of the American economy by the trusts is a critical and verifiable fact elided in this article, regardless of how one might wish to characterize the ethics of those who did it, serving to further the impression that the criticism of robber barons was utterly without merit, and rendering history more difficult to understand in the process. Please do not let politically interested folk erase competing views, and even the facts on which they depend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.115.243.182 (talk) 06:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Nonsense--this complaint echoes the rhetoric of the 1930s. The article closely follows the reliable sources of today. For example long quotes from John Tipple and Steve Fraser explain what the rhetoric was all about. The historical reality of the concept was rejected 40+ years ago. Rjensen (talk) 10:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This is why I checked the talk page, too. I was really surprised by the tone of the article, which seemed to me largely (if subtly) dedicated to explaining that it was all just a misunderstanding. It’s not that the criticism of the term and its application doesn’t belong here, but I was like ... where is the rest of this article? A good example of the tone is the use of qualifiers like "hostile" when there are a references to someone alleging that someone else was a robber baron. That colors it with illegitimacy; does one need to be ‘hostile’ to accuse a business magnate of immoral acts?2601:182:CE00:D75C:8B6:3DDF:428D:D816 (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Philanthropy
This edit adds an editorial comment to the lead section. Original versions were uncited, this version is cited to Brittanica, which is better than nothing. If you compare the Brittanica article to this one, you will notice that their comment about philanthropy is a minor mention in the body, placed in an appropriate context. The proposed edit is none of these things. I would not object to a mention similar to Brittanica's, integrated into the body in a sensible way. --JBL (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The philanthropy section needs work. An excellent place to start is a new collection of research papers by scholars:   also look at Harvey, Charles, et al. "Andrew Carnegie and the foundations of contemporary entrepreneurial philanthropy." Business History 53.3 (2011): 425-450.  which is online here and has a good bibliography.  Rjensen (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 29 March 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

– More common usage of the term but hatnotes in each article direct people to the other pages. - &#124;&#124; RuleTheWiki  &#124;&#124; (talk) 02:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Robber baron (industrialist) → Robber baron
 * Robber baron → ?
 * I think you are meaning to suggest a move in the other direction. —&#8239;BarrelProof (talk) 02:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * oops, sorry. either way the proposal is to just move Robber baron (industrialist) to Robber baron without moving the Robber baron disambiguation page therefore deleting the disambiguation. - &#124;&#124; RuleTheWiki  &#124;&#124; (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The above comment by was made before this request was transferred from another talk page.  P.I. Ellsworth    ed.  put'r there 06:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This request has been transferred from Talk:Robber baron to fix its malformity. Robber baron titles a page with content and so it must also be dispositioned. If this request is granted, then Robber baron may be deleted or moved to Robber baron (disambiguation) and tagged with One other topic in accordance with WP:ONEOTHER.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 06:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support |Robber_baron_(feudalism) Pageviews back this up, no dab needed. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as there doesn't appear to be a primary topic with respect to usage: according to clickstream data for November, 272 readers followed the link to the industrial-era notion, compared to 198 for the feudal one. That's a distribution of 58% vs. 42%, and it's too close. – Uanfala (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. One is a description of an actual feudal character, the other just an anachronistic slur comparing it to the feudal character. It seem to me, if anything, the former would be primary. Walrasiad (talk) 12:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Personally, I'd think first and only of the feudal lord, so I don't think there's any primary topic here. And per both oppose opinions above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Barons in a republic
"The term combines the pejorative senses of criminal ('robber') and aristocrat ('barons' having no legitimate role in a republic)."

This is stated several times, but the last claim is very ahistorical. It might or might not apply to the present American republic, but many republics on from Ancient Rome itself have not only had their own titles and aristocracies, but have actually been 'Aristocratic Republics'. It is quite normal, as well, that any non-monarchic state will be dominated by a precious few, and that they shall [ naturally enough ] pass on their hold over leadership to their own descendants ( including elective positions )  ---  in the end being part of the oligarchy any republic needs to be stable.

Plus which: in monarchies aristocracies and nobles are usually the first to rebel against Kings. User:Claverhouse, 26 April, 2021