Talk:Standard Oil/Archives/2013

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

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

Untitled discussion
The &lt;refs&gt; are all within &lt;small&gt; tags: what's going on there then? it is very crowdy

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

I replaced the attention tag that was recently removed. As much as this article has improved, it in no way is up to snuff (see the previous 3 posts). Bubamara 00:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I removed the parts that occurred after the breakup. The Seven Sisters discussion was misleading, the company names section included companies not part of the trust, and any SONJ discussion belongs in the Exxon Mobil article.--Beirne 09:52, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

Charts
The charts are ok, but why does the data stop at around 1905? Also, it would be good to have a chart showing the declining retail price of oil over time. It coincides with the increases in profit, as Standard was becoming more efficient and lowering its own costs of refining which resulting in them being able to charge lower prices. RJII 05:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * good idea for charts. Charts are real easy to make in Excel but find the data first. ["to make rabbit stew. first catch the rabbit."] Rjensen 05:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Question
i want to know why was his oil campany called a monopoly
 * Please read the article. This sounds like a homework question, and Wikipedia editors aren't here to do your homework.  Also, please put new comments at the bottom of talk pages, not the top.  TastyCakes (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

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

WWII section
The WWII section has a number of problems. First, it states that "Standard Oil" had a cartel arrangement with IG Farben, but neglects to specify which Standard Company (this was long after the breakup). Second, it does not state what was perceived as wrong with the Standard-Farben alliance which was (I presume) entered into when the US and Germany were at peace; did Standard continue to trade with Farben after the US entered the war?. More detail on this point is needed. Going into detail about Farben's war crimes does not tell us anything about any culpability on the part of Standard; without a tighter Standard-Farben link documented in the article, this appears to be a classic "guilt by association" smear. Finally, the article does not state what connection, if any, there was between Standard and the DuPont combination. In short, the entire section is full of problems and needs to be improved or eliminated. Plazak (talk) 02:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Section removed for reasons given above. Plazak (talk) 02:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

Brands
I notice there is little here about branding, which seems odd to me because it is so often something that we go on about at great length for other companies. I'm pretty sure the pre-breakup Standard Oil was the origin of both the Red Crown and White Crown gasoline brands; someone who knows this history better than I should probably follow up. In any case, here's a photo with the Red Crown logo. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 05:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What leads you to feel pretty sure about a connection? — ℜob C. alias &Agrave;LAROB  17:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

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