Talk:Andrew Carnegie/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wikification

This article is in a bit of a mess. Has someone been adding vast screeds recently? It is far too long, not split up into readable sections, and where on earth did all the linking go? It needs some gentle, loving wikification.

And I cannot help but say that some of the language used is ridiculous: it seems to me that someone has been copying huge chunks verbatim out of some very old text. I don't remember the article being this bad the last time I read it about a month ago.--Mais oui! 22:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, some editor added a huge portion about Carnegie's life. I did a cursory search on google to try and see if it was copyvio from some other site, but couldn't find anything. --Syrthiss 14:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I did the same. I have posted a question on the users talk page (User:82.22.86.199). -- Mwanner | Talk 14:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hagiography

I started doing some editing to this article but had to stop because it is far too biased in his favour. The language clearly isn't neutral at all, and, likely, neither are the facts. Stearnsbrian 06:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Later Personal Life

It seems odd to me that the Later Personal Life section is listed after his death, but I'm not sure where else it should go. Amalas 14:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Self made man?

First he makes $2.50 a week, then $4.00 a week, ok. A couple of paragraphs later he invests $40.000 in a farm. Where did this money come from? Was he really a self made man? Geir Gundersen 12:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Response: He had help in investing his money from his mentor at the pennsylvanian railroad company, Thomas A. Scott. His mother gave her house as an security, and he was able to invest $500 very profitable in a firm called Adams Express in 1855. Later he reinvested his money in sleeping wagons for the prc and bought part of the company making the wagons, which turned out again a very profitable investment. This money was used then to invest in iron and bridge companies, and finally he founded companies for making railwaybridges, rails and locomotives.Joost 99 10:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Philanthropies

I'm new to Wikipedia and I know I should just add to this entry, and maybe someday I will. In the meantime, here are a few other Carnegie philanthropies in the U.S. that deserve mention:

• Carnegie Corporation of New York
• Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching
• Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

There's a good list here: [1]

Alex

Many of today's private secular colleges/universities dropped their religious affiliations in the early 1900's. I remember reading somewhere this was because Carnegie stipulated secular conditions before he would help support a school. Does anyone know if this is correct? I can't find anything on google.

The amounts given for his share of the US Steel buyout and for his total philanthropic efforts don't add up. According to the article, the total alue of the US Steel buyout was US$ 480 million, which it says equates to US$ 120 billion today. Then at the end of the Philanthropist section it says that he gave away roughly US$ 350 million which was equated to $4.3 billion today.

I checked the historical rates at measuringworth.com and it looks like the second number was derived from the change in the CPI from 1919 to 2005. If that's the conversion used, then the first number should equate US$ 480 million to US$ 11.4 billion in 2005.

Clearly there was some significant inflation between 1901 and 1919, but not enough to cause the change seen in the article. I don't know the source for the first conversion, but they need to use the same method for both conversions. Historical purchasing power conversions can produce very different results depending on the method used. Radial 16:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

When and why did he move to the US?

I don't see any discussion on his motive and time for moving to the US. Please add. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.235.12.85 (talk) 08:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Pronunciation footnote

28-March-2007: I have moved the pronunciation of "Carnegie" (from Trivia) into a footnote, linked in the top paragraph, adding the Scottish sound. Pronunciation is a top-level issue, but the extra detail with IPA codes, is best handled as a footnote aside. The footnote reads:

Carnegie's name is pronounced with the accent on the second syllable, "car-NEGG-ee" (/kɑɹˈnɛɡi/), not on the first, although "Carnegie Hall" is often pronounced as "CAR-neg-ee" (hall). In Scotland, the name is similar to "car-Nay-gay" (rhymes with "May-day").

Along with the IPA coding, the phonetic quotes are shown as more likely to be understood by many people. Similar to BNF coding in computer work, the IPA codes are too esoteric/arcane and abstract for "normal people" although IPA is great for formally defining subtle spoken variations.

Being an issue of American sophistication, pronunciations are typically addressed discretely, in a private conversation. In American "polite" society, a misspoken word would be politely ignored, then explained afterward, in private. In American writing, littering text with pronunciations is a potential insult to the intelligence of the reader, so the detailed pronunciation-footnote is a happy medium to handle a range of novices, amateurs, and sophisticates. Plus, a footnote has space to address a range of pronunciations, which is even beyond the scope of a typical dictionary entry limited to a small phrase about pronouncing a word. Although appearing as a trivial concept, footnotes are excellent text-technology, analogous to a subroutine in computer programming (but that's another subject). In general, footnotes can store statements typically piled into a Trivia section, and tie each "trivial" statement into one (or more) related parts of the overall article. More at: IPA, above. -Wikid77 11:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Verification

28-March-2007: The article on "Andrew Carnegie" was not protected from unregistered edits in March 2007, so beware changed details, especially for birthdate/birthplace. As a "Bill Gates" of his era, Carnegie is a likely target, and "a rich man's jokes are always funny" so neutral facts are hard to establish. For verification, the intro paragraphs should reflect the following details:

Andrew Carnegie (November 25 1835 – August 11 1919) was a Scottish-American industrialist, businessman, a major and widely respected philanthropist, and the founder of the Carnegie Steel Company which later became U.S. Steel. Carnegie [pronounce] is known for having built one of the most powerful and influential corporations in United States history, and, later in his life, giving away most of his riches to fund the establishment of many libraries, schools, and universities in Scotland, America, and worldwide. Carnegie, a poor boy with fierce ambition, a pleasant personality, and devoted to both hard work and self-improvement, started as a telegrapher. By the 1860s, he had investments in railroads, railroad sleeping cars, as well as bridges and oil derricks, and he built wealth as a bond salesman raising money in Europe for American enterprises. Steel was where he found his fortune. In the 1870s, he founded the Carnegie Steel Company, a step which cemented his name as one of the “Captains of Industry”. By the 1890s, the company was the largest and most profitable industrial enterprise in the world. He sold it to J.P. Morgan's US Steel in 1901 and devoted the remainder of his life to large-scale philanthropy, with special emphasis on local libraries, world peace, and scientific research.

If details in the lede section of the article differ significantly from the above text, it might have been quietly vandalized. Temptation to botch an article is high in the first few sentences. -Wikid77 12:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

References

IPA

From Trivia: "His name is pronounced Car-negie (like car-negg-ie...accent on second syllable)not Carniigiie"

Could someone who knows IPA add a pronunciation key after his name so we can remove this? --Daniel Olsen 22:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

28-March-2007: The IPA code has been added to the pronunciation text; however, I have re-added phonetic quotes ("car-NEGG-ee") as easier for "normal people" to understand. The IPA code, although great for a perfect world, is more geared for expert linquists (linguistic experts) than typical readers; plus, the IPA characters won't even display by default on all screens. As if the unprintable nature of IPA-code characters weren't bad enough, those codes are unicode characters, which can cause text to be stored double in size just to save those few IPA characters. So, an article that would be 41kb might store as 82kb, just because 20 bytes of IPA unicode are present. However, IPA codes are included for a limited audience, just as mathematical equations and chemical formulas are included in some Wikipedia articles. -Wikid77 13:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (delisted)

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of November 15, 2007, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR. Ruslik 13:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

1) The article lackes inline citations for almost all facts including quotations and numbers.

2) The article contains too many stubby paragraphs, which should be merged.

Ruslik 13:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Just Scottish?

Didn't Andrew ever become an American citizen at some point in his life? If so, presumably, he should be described as Scottish-American (which one of the categories this article falls under seems to indicate) or a Scottish-born American or somesuch, not just Scottish. He did move to the country at the age of thirteen, after all, and seemed to identify himself with the US throughout most of his life and career. 69.0.36.23 05:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. Per MOSBIO I will change that. --Tom 18:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Nonsensical sentence?

There is a sentence in the Philosophy section that reads "Carnegie believed that achievement of financial failed could be reduced to a simple formula, which could be duplicated by the average person". It doesn't appear to make any sense - what is it supposed to say? Richerman (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Esquire?

On our Carnegie Library in Greenwich, UK, his name is shown as "Andrew Carnegie, Esq.". The wikipedia article never mentions that he was granted this title at some stage. Does anyone have something to back this up?

The title Esq. isn't "granted" and doesn't really mean anything. It's just used as a form of politeness denoting a "gentleman" see Esquire for a full explanation. Richerman (talk) 13:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Quick edit

Edited out a thrash paragraph accusing Carnegie of being a male prostitue, active from 1910 to 1940. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.77.192 (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource

The box with the other projects doesn't lead directly to the Wikisource material, as the material there is filed with the title beginning "author" rather than just Carnegie's name. I don't know how to resolve this and have added a separate Wikisource box.--Alan (talk) 09:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Place of birth

Having been reverted, I have restored Dunfermline, Fife, United Kingdom which is congruent with (place of death) Lenox, Massachusetts, United States. Chrisieboy (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject WikiProject Fife

Description

This article would cover all Fife-related articles such as places, famous people, museums, football and rugby clubs and churches to name a few. Examples would be: Kirkcaldy, Andrew Carnegie, Adam Smith, Dunfermline Abbey, Dunfermline Athletic, The Old Course and Kirkcaldy Museum and Art Gallery. This could also help support articles that really do need a lot of work while keeping general maintenance. Examples would be: Methil, Dunfermline, Cupar and a lot of the smaller towns such as Kennoway and Lower Largo. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Wikiproject_WikiProject_Fife. Kilnburn (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Marriage, child

Why are these not mentioned? 121.44.177.167 (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC) He was a very good peen and he was very rich. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.105.152.172 (talk) 21:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking for assertions

When reading this article, i was looking for actions that would support this guy's assession. I found none. I didn't know they guy until today, but is the absence of such competitive behaviour due to the article's missing something or is the post on this link pushing a point too far? Just a curious reader. This is the statement that triggered me to read this article "I'm trying to think of another historical figure in the United States history who was that powerful, that philanthropic, and yet that reviled. Andrew Carnegie maybe."[2] gathima 00:44, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

An article was published in Scotland's Sunday Herald newspaper a few days ago that might shed some light on that claim.

He [American historian David Nasaw] has unearthed numerous documents that previous biographers had no access to or didn’t find, including a prenuptial agreement signed by Carnegie and his wife Louise Whitfield in April 1887 – which according to the historian is one of the first prenuptial documents ever made – and an 1885 letter the philanthropist wrote to British Prime Minister William Gladstone.

Both documents, Nasaw claims, prove that Carnegie planned to give away his fortune before the Homestead riots of 1892, when Carnegie’s attempt to break the union at his steel factory resulted in a bloody strike in which some of the workers died.

Nasaw said: “The general notion is that Carnegie gave away money to either rescue a failing reputation after Homestead and/or assuage his guilt for Homestead. This was certainly the opinion of his numerous critics on both sides of the Atlantic.

“What I’m sure of is that they [his previous biographers] didn’t understand – as I do because of my discovery of the 1885 letter to Gladstone and the 1887 prenuptial – that Carnegie had decided to give his money away long before Homestead and his retirement.” [3].

I hope that helps. --Colin Angus Mackay 11:41, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

For a succinct description of the Homestead Lockout, in which Frick did all the dirty work with Carnegie's blessing, see the section "Henry Clay Frick and Andrew Carnegie", in American Monsters : 44 rats, blackhats, and plutocrats, edited by Jack Newfield and Mark Jacobson (2004: Thunder's Mouth Press). Denison908 (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Denison908

- Carnegie's memoirs/autobiography has a lot of interesting things from his point of view on Homestead. He mentioned that the solution to the Homestead was the adoption of a sliding scale of pay for all of the workers - the workers' income was directly tied to the profits of the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.232.75 (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sister and a raft?

I can not find supporting information for these claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeghodgesiii (talk • contribs) 05:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I am 99% certain this is some odd vandalism. Can someone please please fix?? I looked for the edit and the prior version to revert but can't find it! Thanks all. --gobears87 (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

External links

Per WP:NOTREPOSITORY and WP:EL, I think the external links in this article need to be pared down considerably. My gut feeling is that no more than two or three should be necessary, versus the 23 that are present now. —Notyourbroom (talk) 02:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

older entries

Did Carnegie invent a new process for manufacturing steel? This article is certainly far shorter than it ought eventually to become. -- Mike Hardy

Also, as of 2-12-07, the first External link, [[4]] , has no relevance to Carnegie, nor does anything on that site. Instead, the link goes to a biography on "Bernard Arnault" , CEO of Moét Hennessy Louis Vuitton.

I think he stole the new manufacturing process. His competitor invented it, and Carnegie ran a smear campaign against the new process, saying it resulted in inferior steel. So the company lost a lot of money, Carnegie was able to buy it, and then used the new, more efficient process himself. I don't have a source for that, just remembering from a movie on him i once saw. Tyrannophobe (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

On a trip to England, Carnegie visited a mill in which the new Bessemer converter was being used to manufacture steel. He grasped its potential and brought the process back to the U.S. However, I do not know if he violated international copyrights by doing so, or if he paid for the use. I suggest that saying he stole the process and destroyed the originating company based on a movie depicting him doing so, is not a valid reference. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 00:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Could someone please address the pronunciation of his name? I believe it's karNAYggee, but one often hears KARnuhggee.Rockhopper10r 15:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

As a Scot, I would (roughly) agree with your first pronunciation. We say it (approximately) car-Nay-gay (but all-run-together). I cannot comment on how Americans or others may pronounce it, but it is highly likely that Carnegie himself used the Scottish pronunciation.--Mais oui! 20:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

As another Scot, I'd agree with that pronounciation. --Colin Angus Mackay 00:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

For American pronunciation, I believe it is "Car-NAY-Gee". But since his last name is not English the true pronunciation might be the one that they listed above. 24.8.205.77 04:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

My personal, American, opinion is that it is pronounced KARnuhggee as mentioned above. I've heard that a lot more often than I've heard karNAYggee. Amalas 14:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think in Scotland it is pronounced Kar-negg-ee, but certainly in the U.S., references to Carnegie Hall always seem to be pronounced Kar-nugg-ee. Legis 08:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyone want to have a go at putting this in International Phonetic Alphabet? It would help for clearing this up. I also don't know if there's a way to link to a sound file which will "speak" the correct pronunciation, but if possible, that would be nice too! Isoxyl 15:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

As an American, Pittsburgher, and student at Carnegie Mellon University.... There is no consensus, but most locals say Car-neggy. And this absolutely does not belong in the Trivia section. It belongs next to his name at the beginning, or not at all, and it belongs in IPA. It also belongs wherever it goes along with a citation. The present blurb in the trivia section is utterly unsupported, and very few of the people around here say that. Greyscale 11:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with the above. As an American, Pittsburgher, and Carnegie Mellon Alum, locals pronounce it "Kar-NEH-gee" or "Kar-NAY-gee"--one can always spot an out-of-towner by the use of "KAR-nuhgee" (nuh being a schwa sound). As far as Merriam Webster is concerned (below), a dictionary is only a guide reflecting standard usages. Thus, it indicates how people use a term or pronounce a term, not necessarily what is actually correct. While I am not interested in getting into a debate about standard usage modifying correctness, I will go so far as to say that because one pronunciation of a man's name is the standard one does not make it the correct one. I would side with the Scots-folk (?) here on the board who are in the best position to know how to pronounce a Scottish name. Also, having lived in Pittsburgh (which is hardly the only place with a connection to the man, but still...) for over 30 years, I can state with reasonable authority that the common pronunciation among locals has the accent on the second syllable, not the first. Finally, a recent trip to the Carnegie Museum of Natural History settled a debate with an out-of-town friend: the pronunciation guide at the museum for the dinosaur named after Andrew Carnegie lists the accent on the second syllable. While this is certainly not dispositive, I think it a fairly safe bet that in honoring a man's legacy by naming something of that size and sort after him, those doing the naming would not mispronounce his name. Finally, two posters below: 1. the poster who indicated that what's important is how the name is pronounced in America today. Regardless of how the name is pronounced in America today, Andrew Carnegie's last name has one discrete pronunciation (that may or may not be how it is pronounced in America today). How American's pronounce the name may determine how institutions named AFTER Carnegie in America (like Carnegie Hall and the Carnegie corporation, Carnegie Museum, etc.) but do not affect how Andrew Carnegie's last name is actually pronounced. 2. the poster who indicated the difference in pronunciation between Carnegie Hall and the Carnegie Corporation--I believe those are regional differences. Where I am from, both Carnegie Hall and the Carnegie Corporation are pronounced the same--aka, with the accent on the second syllable (Kar-NAY-gee). Many in the classical music industry, however, refer to Carnegie Hall in NY as (KAR-nugee). (I have not observed any classical musicians referring to the corporation, so I can't generalize as to whether there actually is a large-scale discrepancy between how Carnegie Hall and Carnegie Corporation are pronounced. If there is, however, it stands to reason it would boil down to regional differences again: the more famous music hall (there is also one in Pittsburgh) is in NY, and the NY-ers I know pronounce it KAR-nugee; the corporation was incorporated in a locale that favors Kar-NAY-gee. 24.131.85.136 (talk) 05:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What's important, I think, is how it's pronounced in America today, since he is an American philanthropist and his name is attached to American institutions. Having said that, the pronunciations put forth by Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary (/kɑɹ'nɛgi/ or /'kɑɹnʌgi/) are both correct. I will insert it after his last name at the beginning of the article if there are no objections. DeeKenn 04:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It also depends on what's being named after him, what the convention is. It's KAR-nagee hall, but the kar-NEY-gee corporation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyrannophobe (talk • contribs) 18:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Added IPA pronunciation per above paragraph. For style use of back to back parentheses, please advise. DeeKenn 12:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

okay you guys. we need "dirt" on this guy for class. EDIT!!

In 1898, Andrew Carnegie offered $20 million USD to the US government to "buy" the Philippines so he can give the Philippines its independence. He was an opponent of US imperialism. In what section in the article can we put this fact? Hong Qi Gong 21:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No suggestions? Hong Qi Gong 23:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

OOPS - that would be $20 Million USD. Not $20 USD. Anyway, if nobody else is interested in adding this bit of information, I'll try to come up with something myself. - Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

There's significant debate as to why Carnegie offered the U.S. $20 Million to "buy" the Philippines--some scholars believe it was because he was a proponent of American Imperialism; others because he was genuinely interested in attaining peace (indeed, much of his efforts over the years had been in securing peace--there is some mention of this in the article, actually). So this "fact" cannot accurately be introduced into the article as a fact at all as it isn't factual--merely conjectural. As there are no primary source documents indicating his motivation for offering to purchase the Philippines, you could introduce this fact and his possible motivations as speculations only. Not facts. I agree, the fact is worth a mention--but only the fact that he offered to buy the Philippines, not any speculation as to his motivation. 24.131.85.136 (talk) 05:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

IPA

Called the Carnegie Museum and the Pennsylvania dept. of the Carnegie Library in Pittsburgh. Both said it's /kɑrˈneɪgi/, not /kɑrˈnɛgi/. The library said their source is the second president, Samuel Hardin Church. kwami (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Though you've indicated the pronunciation I favor (being from Pittsburgh myself), calling the Carnegie Museum and Carnegie Library for verification of pronunciation isn't really the best strategy: you're getting someone on the phone who will pronounce the name as people in the region pronounce the name--not necessarily how Andrew Carnegie pronounced the name. While it stands to reason that people who live in the place where he chose to make his home would pronounce his name as he did, that reasoning is flawed. I am from Pittsburgh, where he lived, and attended Carnegie Mellon University--and I pronounce it with the accent on the second syllable. However, a friend of mine is from New York, where he also lived, and pronounces it with the accent on the first. Point being--calling a library or museum and getting a local person on the phone isn't proof of much except how that particular individual pronounces something. 24.131.85.136 (talk) 05:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Quotations

Should not Carnegie's most famous quotation be added:

The man who dies thus rich dies disgraced. (The Gospel of Wealth) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.160.3.74 (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

quote

"If you want to be happy, set a goal that commands your thoughts, liberates your energy, and inspires your hopes."— Andrew Carnegie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.184.26 (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Lacking in Citations

This article is severely lacking in citations, which I beleive invalidates it from being labelled a "good article".

-where does it say he first worked in a Bobbin factory, his autobiography on pg 32 says otherwise. Also, every other source i've checked says he started working as a telegraph assistant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patton420 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Immigrate / Emigrate

Will people please stop changing immigrate to emmigrate and back again. I thought it was wrong to begin with, but I checked the dictionary and immigrate (however much it sounds odd to some) is correct. You emmigrate FROM somewhere, and you immigrate TO somewhere. I'm now going to change it back.... again. --Colin Angus Mackay 22:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to be a narc, but emigrate has only one "m", while immigrate has two. I don't know which dictionary you used, but "emmigrate" (2 ms) is in none of the ones I have looked in. That's English for you. I've changed the heading. Cheers JackofOz 23:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The point, that most people seem to miss, is that if you write of him immigrating to, then you are writing from the perspective of the country to which he moved; only an American can say he immigrated to the United States. Whilst it is perfectly correct to say, from any country on the globe, that he emigrated from Scotland. Therefore, in the perspective neutral Wikipedia it is only ever correct to speak of people emigrating. Cottonshirtτ 06:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The above description of immigrate vs. emigrate is mistaken. It is quite simple--one immigrates TO a country but emigrates FROM a country. The perspective of the writer has no bearing on which term is used.Grandpallama (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Johnstown Flood "Controversy"

This section needs some help. While it suggests (by merit of the word "controversy") that Carnegie (and other members of the South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club) was in some respect responsible for the flood, the section does not indicate how or why those men were responsible for the flood. A simple sentence indicating that the club had ownership of the dam and were negligent in maintaining the upkeep of the dam, would suffice (if this is actually the case--I know little about this, which is one reason why the section caught my attention. It was poorly explained.), as would a sentence stating that the negligent upkeep of the dam caused the flood or significantly contributed to it. As it stands, the section creates no line of possible causation between Carnegie and the flood. 24.131.85.136 (talk) 05:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Just flagged the same section. There were no citations. While the author doesn't outright state that Carnegie let the dam go because of steel competition, the implication is clear enough. It essentially implies the guy was some kind of mass murderer. I plan to remove the section if it is not cleaned up in a few days.

Lazr75 (talk) 14:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I should note, I flagged the page last year (1st post is mine). It's been flagged for a year--I will remove it today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazr75 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The section was unencyclopedic. It's been over a year and no one has added verifiable citations, so I deleted it.

Lazr75 (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the section and added a couple of refs. I have also included technical information on the steel industry: a glaring ommission in the article given that he made his second fortune by supplyiong the USA with cheap steel. Peterlewis (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that paragraph indicating that the dam was eventually owned by the club. That does a better job of connecting Carnegie to the destruction. Let's work on some cites to nail it down completely. Question--who has blamed the flood on the club? (Your first sentence indicates that the club has been blamed for the flood but doesn't indicate who's done the blaming (and if that source is reputable.) Thanks!

Lazr75 (talk) 02:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

First sentence in this article

Are you guys going to use the conjunction and to put the word philanthropist in the first sentence. A lot of articles depend on a proper description of Carnegie. If you push down philanthropist to the 2nd second, even though you say he was "one of the most important" (which really there is no need to use the words most important like that), it kind of cast doubt on how important philanthropy was as a part of his life. Point being, if you put philanthropist in the 1st sentence, then I will feel more comfortable writing "industrialist and philanthropist" Andrew Carnegie donate 5.2M to the new york public library. And of course, Nasaw will back up philanthropy being early in the game in Carnegie's life (i.e. before he donated money to the new york public library)

Also, using the conjunction and can allow you to drop from 1 half baked paragraph and 3 other paragraphs to 3 nice looking paragraphs for the intro and save like 18 bytes :) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Another Carnegie Hall

There is another Carnegie Hall in the United States which is still operating. It is used year round as a performance hall and is in the town of Lewisburg, Greenbrier County, West Virginia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.219.25 (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Homestead Strike - content contradiction to Wikipedia page "Pinkertons - Homestead Strike"

It says in the Pinkertons page "... resulted in a fight in which 16 men were killed (7 Pinkertons and 9 Strikers) ..." Here it says " ... in a fight in which 10 men—seven strikers and three Pinkertons—were killed ..."

Because I don't know the correct numbers I can't edit any of the two pages. 213.73.119.167 (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Indented line

I'd go with what's on the Pinkertons page, since the numbers on this page also contradict those on the Homestead Strike page. The numbers on the Homestead Strike page also agree with those on the Pinkertons page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.89.73.202 (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Carnegie International 1896

From the 'History' page on the Carnegie museum site, linked from Carnegie Institute of Technology, Pittsburgh:

Carnegie International -- 1896
...the first-ever Carnegie International brought the world’s coolest art to Pittsburgh in 1896.

This date seems to pre-date the earliest mention in this article on related topic. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

1901–1919: Philanthropist

In this section there are several mentions of events occurring prior to 1901. ~~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

spelling error?

"He was also one of the highest profile philanthropists of his era; his 1889 article "Wealth" (known more commonly—particularly in colloquial parlance—as "The Gospel of Wealth") remains a formative advisory text for those who aspire to lead philantropic lives."

Philantropic is not a word. It should say philanthropic (with an h).

Google auto-corrects it. I probably can't verify this, but I checked with my dad, whose job involves muttering about philanthropies, non-profits, charities and all equivalents. He verified that it's not a word.

Thanks. Corrected. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Punctuation

There are also some punctuation errors. "former Presidents Grover Cleveland and Benjamin Harrison" should not have the commas before "Grover" and after "Harrison". The section about the Homestead strike says "worker's" when it should say "workers'".

 Done. Thanks. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Napoleon Hill

The article asserts the Napoleon Hill story about Carnegie with no source cited.

David Nasaw’s 2007 biography of Carnegie never mentions Hill.

Absent independent verification of Hill's claim, perhaps this section should be removed as unverified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurelcooper (talk • contribs) 22:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

There is absolutely no evidence to indicate Napoleon Hill ever met Carnegie, let alone was ever entrusted with any of Carnegie's ideas about wealth, or was commissioned by Carnegie to undertake research. Carnegie did not collaborate with Hill on the writing of any book. Hill, in fact, was disparaging about Carnegie after his death in 1919, challenging his philanthropic work as purely narcissistic. Hill's claims to any collaboration with Carnegie are entirely spurious - no biography of Carnegie even bothers to discuss the man's claims. A simple reading of Hill's book claiming to embrace the wisdom of Andrew Carnegie will indicate that his ideas bear no relation to those of Carnegie. Hill's use of Carnegie's name was and remains merely a marketing tool - there is no evidence the men ever met, let alone collaborated in any work or research. The presentation of their association as fact in this article on Carnegie is entirely unjustified, nor should Hill's book be included in the bibliography as it has no relevance to Carnegie the man. The references to Hill must be removed as entirely spurious and unverified.

31.53.5.127 (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Budge Burgess 27/05/2013

Contradictory info on Cuba

There seem to be conflicting statements in the article about Carnegie's views on the annexation of Cuba. At one point he's said to have supported it, and at another point he's said to have opposed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.24.153 (talk) 10:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

good point--I fixed it. annexation of Cuba was not possible because of the Teller Amendment. Rjensen (talk) 10:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Note on pronunciation

As a native Pittsburgher, I fully agree with the present pronunciation information given in the article:

"Andrew Carnegie (properly /kɑrˈneɪɡi/, but commonly /ˈkɑrnɨɡi/ or /kɑrˈnɛɡi/)"

There is a citation provided, so hopefully my view isn't really necessary, but I thought I'd add it here just in case.

In my experience, the universal consensus of Western Pennsylvanians in talking about the man and the institutions bearing his name is to use kɑrˈneɪɡi, but it's common to hear the other pronunciations used by folks from outside of the region, such as in documentaries and news reports and so on.

Glancing over the talk page, it appears that this has been in some dispute on this matter in the past, so I just wanted to proactively put my view on the record. —Notyourbroom (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is correct to say that the /ˈkɑrnɨɡi/ pronunciation is "wrong". Carnegie means something like "notched cairn" (seems to be Carn rather than Car, because if neɪ was Gaelic "of" it would not be carrying the stress). It is common for Americans to switch the stress in Celtic (and indeed Romance) names, because being originally [mostly] Englishmen and Germans they expect to stress the first syllable. car-LISLE become CAR-lisle (Pennsylvania), DunBAR becomes DUNbar (surname, watch Dances with Wolves), DunDEE becomes DUNdee, aberDEEN becomes ABerdeen, and so on. It is arguably a legitimate part of American English, but since this guy is a Scot by origin I think you can argue that /ˈkɑrnɨɡi/ is just plain wrong. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

...It is arguably a legitimate part of American English... I think that that's a fair statement. However, Western Pennsylvania English is a dialect of English as legitimate as any other, and in it, "Carnegie" is pronounced with the historically-correct stress pattern. The great majority of Carnegie's works and legacy are concentrated in Western Pennsylvania, so even on a "local" American basis, there is ample reason to favor the historically-correct pronunciation over the naive standard American English pronunciation. One could consider this issue to be a microcosm of the fact that the English-language Wikipedia forces American, British, Scottish, Australian, Canadian, Indian, Hong Kong, and other varieties of English to co-exist. In this article, if the Scottish and the Western Pennsylvanian pronunciations line up with one another (and they do), then that's quite a knock-out punch for determining primacy of pronunciation style. —Bill Price^{(notyourbroom)} 19:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Primary I can see, but properly is still very subjective, especially claiming wrong and right pronunciation for a person with such an (inter)national legacy seems POV. Maybe a good solution is to take example from Van Gogh, which is very often "mis"pronounced, but so often and world wide, it has also become accepted: see Van_Gogh#cite_note-0 for a good, multiple views, example. I think this situation might be helped by a footnote stating the different pronunciations. This also gives some room to explain the different origins, so to avoid future discussions (hopefully...) Joost 99 (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I dunno. The CARNegie pronunciation is just a case of placing the stress in the wrong place. It's wrong just like washingTON is wrong ... doesn't reflect how natives say it, but how some people might say it seeing only it spelled and having not been "informed". Carnegie was a Scot after all. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I am interested in only one pronunciation of anyone's name - the one he used. The rest is just ignorant babbling. 76.31.141.38 (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Ferdinand

Edit request on 28 May 2013

Carnegie sold the steel business to Morgan for 492 million, not 480 [leave 480, add citation] Re-requested by LeProf, see below. 65.191.74.40 (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I don't doubt that the article may be wrong because there isn't a citation with that section, but there will still need to be a source referenced in order to change it. --ElHef (Meep?) 00:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

To leave in one unreferenced fact, in lieu of another, is to give false credence based on the history of the first fact being in place longer. There is no reasonable scholarly basis for such an argument; moreover, the time it took to verify the 480 via a reasonable web source was 15 secs.

As it stands, the first fact appears to be correct: http://www.history.com/topics/andrew-carnegie (first source, with replacement by print source desirable).

In this academicians view, we simply cannot allow wikipedia articles continue to flaunt accepted scholarly encyclopedic writing practice by longterm maintenance of uncited factual information and quotations. It is simply improper. I would suggest tags be maintained no longer than 6 mos. (In any serious academic setting it would not be allowed to continiue for a single editorial/review cycle.) Then offending (literally, principle- and rule-violating) material should be automatically removed, in keeping with the threat that appears in the tags, but is rarely acted upon manually.

Coding can certainly be devised to date particular relevant tags, and a bot can clearly be created to remove a sentence that has been tagged beyond a certain date. LeProf

Done. The 480 figure is apparently correct, although a scholarly source would be even better. (Note to LeProf: please sign your talk-page posts by typing four consecutive tildes or clicking on the signature button above the edit window.) Rivertorch (talk) 06:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Source for Idolatry passage under Keystone Bridge Company section?

can we get a footnote for this quote, saying what document it comes from, and if possible, a link to the full document? Thanks.

The Crunchy Frog (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 September 2013

African American minority 99.172.33.10 (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not clear what you're asking for. Could you please explain? Rivertorch (talk) 05:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Adding tag to the lead, because of repetition, gaps

I began reading this article this morning, and haven't time or expertise to carefully edit it. As an experienced writer, I'd just note that the long (4 paragraph) lead makes for a very dissatisfying read as it stands. After a well-written opening paragraph, the lead proceeds in paragraphs that are somewhat jumbled, awkwardly structured, and largely without sources. As well, the paragraph breaks are strangely conceived, and internal structure includes various jumps and gaps. Some specifics: There is only one citation, other than on name pronunciation, in the long, fact-filled lead. Progression of jobs held jumps from menial (messenger), to founding and leading Carnegie Steel. The subject's role in the steel industry appears three times, in different ways, in paragraph's 1,2, and 4—almost as if the summary biographies were written 2-3 times, and appended to one another rather than being merged. Philanthropy is also covered in more than one paragraph—in the second half of paragraph 2 and continued into paragraph 3. Then, after returning his earnings in steel briefly, the lead closes with a third pass at philanthropy. The single cited fact—about one gift, to Upper Iowa University, in paragraph 3—seems far too specific and trivial, especially as the preceding paragraph closes with philanthropic contributions founding 4 major, world renown institutions. Because of these reasons and related issues, I've added a couple of tags. This needs a thorough re-write by one knowledgable and effective writer. LeProf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.206.67 (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for a very much improved lead (whomsoever is/are responsible, and a "you're welcome" is invited—so I know who to personally thank—if only one or a few were responsible).

Now, a final edit request, 16 August 2013

Please change "—, " to "—".

That is, in the lead there is currently a punctuation typo, an m-dash followed by a comma and space (where only the former, without extraneous space, is, I believe, correct). Thank you. LeProf

Already done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

M-dash comma

Hi LeProf, actually there was nothing wrong with the comma after the m-dash. true, it is not common, but there is nothing wrong with it. Imganine the sentence without the section between dashes: it would equire a comma. By inserting the section, does not mean the comma falls away. People just don't don;t do it because some claim it look cluttered, others simply don't know.

• 1. He sold the company to J.P. Morgan for $480 million, creating the U.S. Steel Corporation.
• 2. He sold the company to J.P. Morgan for $480 million—the equivalent of approximately $13.5 billion in 2012—, creating the U.S. Steel Corporation.

Part of why it looks odd is because of the US convention (not followed by all, eg NYTimes) of the unspaced m-dash. Here, there is no space around the first one, but there is a space after the second one. Let's look at it with spaces:

• 3. He sold the company to J.P. Morgan for $480 million — the equivalent of approximately $13.5 billion in 2012 —, creating the U.S. Steel Corporation.

Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 02:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Rui, do you have a reference to a recognized style guide or similar that supports a comma after an em-dash? I can't remember ever seeing such a construct used, so I would appreciate reading anything you know of that is relevant (and recognized as authoritative).

Certainly that usage is not supported by the Wikipedia Manual of Style, in particular MOS:DASH. (The example where the em dash is part of a quoted phrase, which is then followed by a comma, is of course off point; we're not talking about quoted phrases here.) Incidentally, in the latter you will note that WP supports two uses of dashes: An en dash with spaces around it, or an em dash with no spaces. No other combinations are given.

I must say that I disagree completely with your opinion that "by inserting the section, does not mean the comma falls away." My opinion is "of course it does." Commas denote a weak separation between parts of a sentence, whereas surrounding a section with em dashes provides a very strong separation, even to the extent of calling strong attention to the phrase so enclosed. I see no point in following a marker of very strong separation with a marker of weak separation; the former makes the latter completely superfluous. So I would very much like to see where it is documented that a comma following an em dash is considered proper usage. Regards... Jeh (talk) 07:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The term "Robber baron" should be part of the introduction chapter

The fact that he was one of the most brutal capitalists in his time should be mentioned in the beginning of the article. Until now it seems Carnegie had been a philanthrop instead of a murderer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.179.108.172 (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Religion?

Shouldn't his religion be mentioned in the box under his picture? 175.106.32.79 (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

1892: Homestead Strike

I question the veracity of the opening of the third paragraph:

"After a recent increase in profits by 60%, the company refused to raise worker's pay by more than 30%. When some of the workers demanded the full 60%, management locked the union out."

I never have read any account that would agree with this, and the article offers no citation. I'd love to know where this originated.

A.C. Burgoyne's "The Homestead Strike" (1893), Leon Wolff's "Lockout" (1965), and William Serrin's "Homestead" (1992) all state that the company unilaterally refused to continue to recognize the Amalgamated, and informed the men by decree in late June that, while the workers were welcome to stay in its employ, they would do so on the company's terms. In other words, there was no "negotiating" at all.

Further, the union had no idea what the company's profits were, let alone by what percentage they had increased. The company (H.C. Frick) refused to divulge financial information, even under oath in Congressional hearings or in the legal proceedings of the several trials that followed in 1893.72.95.206.215 (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Carnegie's autobiography has a chapter on the strike, and this section seems to follow his story pretty closely. I would like to see citations to his autobiography here, but the page is currently protected against vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.146.21.163 (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

No Reference to TIAA-CREF?

Andrew Carnegie founded TIAA-CREF which has grown to just under $1 trillion in assets in its 100 years. How can this not be mentioned on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.165.48.50 (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Inflation figures off

In the first paragraph... "During the last 18 years of his life, he gave away to charities, foundations, and universities about $350 million[2] (in 2015, $13.7 billion)."

Then a few lines later... "He built Pittsburgh's Carnegie Steel Company, which he sold to J.P. Morgan in 1901 for $480 million[2] (in 2011, $309 billion), creating the U.S. Steel Corporation." 50.82.121.130 (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)illini80

The discrepancy is probably due to the use or non-use of the inflation template, which IIRC isn't really supposed to be used for this type of conversion. Happy holidays! Paine  07:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

"Intellectual influences" section

This section (on Spencer vs. Carnegie) is slightly confusing: it's sometimes hard to extract the differences between their beliefs. There's also a sentence that is perhaps missing a word: "Spencer insisted that all forms of philanthropy uplift the poor and downtrodden were reckless and incompetent”…

Thank you for noticing and for opening this discussion! I found several minor needs in that section and filled them. Remember that in articles like this, anybody may edit, so feel free to make improvements. And please consider the creation of a free account of your own. Happy New Year! Paine  19:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. One can make grammatical suggestions / improvements, but often on other subjects one lacks the knowledge (that one was originally seeking in the article). In regard to joining, dunno whether it’s a Groucho Marx / club membership thing or simple laziness, but am disinclined to sign up : ) ...However, cheers for the work you do here.

Pleasure! Paine  

Wealth

The article states that Carnegie gave away $350,695,653, which it claims is the equivalent of approximately $4.3 billion, adjusted to 2005 figures, and that he had $30,000,000 remaining which he willed away. The List of most wealthy historical figures article, to which this article links, states that Carnegie's wealth was equivalent to $127.3 billion adjusted to 2006 figures. The inflation rate in the article seems quite low. What's correct? Stearnsbrian 22:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)...... who cares?

The former figures may have been just a record of his cash donations and the amount in his will at the time of his death, while the $127.3bil figure may have included non-cash assets in the total. (The value of homes, art, etc, etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.68.59.73 (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

There is some problem with the net worth figure of 309 billion dollars. This cannot be correct. Somebody should check around with the constant dollars and revise it. The article on the wealthiest people indicates 75 billion - but I am not sure that is correct either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reader33333 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The inflation calculation of the amount he got from selling to JP Morgan seems also to be off by a factor 100. The Influaciotn function is screwed up it seems. 80.36.61.167 (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Andrew Carnegie. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://sleepyhollowcemetery.org/wpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/sleepy-hollow-cemetery-map.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  02:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Nasaw Citation

In the References section there are citations of Nasaw's book that list pages in the 3000's, 4000's, and 11000's. Don't quite think this is correct, the book is 800 pages long. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Andrew Carnegie. 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/20100302035251/http://carnegie.org/about-us/foundation-history/about-andrew-carnegie/carnegie-for-kids/andrew-carnegie-legacy/ to http://carnegie.org/about-us/foundation-history/about-andrew-carnegie/carnegie-for-kids/andrew-carnegie-legacy/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090208191301/http://www.mtwilson.edu/his/art/g1a4.php to http://www.mtwilson.edu/his/art/g1a4.php

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 06:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The other version of Carnegie

Being from Pittsburgh I am troubled by the minimization of Carnegie's (and Frick's) efforts to 'break' the worker's unions. Local opinions cast him as diabolical and responsible for the deaths of many workers. Though I lack references at this time I only wanted to leave a statement regarding this. I've not heard anyone from this region ever say something kind about the man except to say that his philanthropy was an effort to buy his way into heaven. He was not a hero to the labor unions. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 10:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

collecting sources:

https://journals.psu.edu/phj/article/viewFile/25439/25208

Carnegie's first job

The article is currently incorrect. Andrew Carnegie's first job was when he was 13 year's old and got a job as a bobbin boy working 12 hour shifts at Anchor Cotton Mills in Pittsburgh. MrsAmyL85 (talk) 02:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Wife and family?

Wife and daughters' names aren't mentioned...

Wife's name was Louise Whitfield, and daughter's name was Margaret (added into article) --Djamund 14:39, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Disgrace?

I just reverted a change that suggested that Carnegie wanted to give all his money away rather than die "disgraced". I thought that the change was somewhat spurious and without substance. So, if he was "disgraced", then what was he "disgraced" about? --Colin Angus Mackay 23:27, 27 Mar 2006 (UTC)

Response,

Andrew Carnegie once wrote that "The man who dies thus rich, dies disgraced." He sincerly believed that dying with money was a waste, and that it was disgraceful to waste capital.

Also:

It seems odd that theories of monpolization or industrial integration don't appear in this article. Do we have a problem with point of view? Whether you think his business practices were good or not, it's important that this article has fair coverage from both perspectives on this man.

Update Net Worth

The current figure is in 2014 dollars and should be updated to 2020 dollars. As of time of writing, this is $408.43 Billion

75.138.97.214 (talk) 06:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 06:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Wildly biased lead

Why is the lead gushing about his donations, while completely omitting the terribly oppressive work conditions and union busting he was known for? ex. https://www.history.com/news/andrew-carnegie-unions-homestead-strike 50.194.115.156 (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, why is their tosh like "To some, Carnegie represents the idea of the American dream. He was an immigrant from Scotland who came to America and became successful. He is not only known for his successes but his enormous amounts of philanthropist works, not only to charities but also to promote democracy and independence to colonized countries.[70]", which is completely hagiographic purple prose, and why is the OR of him being buried near Gompers brought up? What relevance does that have to anything?

This article reads like it was written by his PR agent.50.194.115.156 (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Philanthropy

Andrew Carnegie appears to have been omitted from the philanthropist category https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:20th-century_philanthropists Could somebody add the appropriate tag, e.g. Category:20th-century philanthropists. Daeron (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2021

Please change the scotch to Scots .......thats a shocking mistake , fellow Scot not fellow scotch , scotch is a drink 92.21.237.170 (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 20:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Undone by Ejdguiseley. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. It appears to be a direct quotation, so we shouldn't change it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Pronunciation revisited

I found a relatively recent source which addresses regional preferences; I would have already added it to the footnote but I wanted to confirm that it's a RS. https://www.wesa.fm/arts-sports-culture/2019-04-18/car-nuh-gie-or-car-nay-gie-depends-on-where-youre-from, WESA-FM. Mapsax (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Pronunciation, again.

I’d like to see a source for ‘note 1’, something on the difference between the said ‘NAY’ and the Scots-based vowel that is the original. Maybe a note from the IPA? That is, it’s not clear that the American ‘NAY’ fails to reproduce the Scots. 2601:140:8900:16B0:F90B:6A81:89C5:9F0F (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aaron.matzke.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Quelsfrogs. Peer reviewers: Dreyes11.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2022

Please add “Pamela Mitchell, Gail Boggs, Barbara Sanders, Dylan Evans, Courtney Evans Sweeney” to relatives section.

Please see family tree via Google. Anon77990 (talk) 00:14, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Anon77790 Anon77990 (talk) 00:14, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Additionally, non notable relatives are seldom included. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I'm surprised to see the British pronunciation stated to be Car-neh-gee. All the Scots I know with this name pronounce it Car-NEE-gee. 2A00:23C6:CB80:6F01:7848:2471:855E:DA81 (talk) 06:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Typographical Error

There's a typo on this page that I cannot fix due to the lock. Under Controversies, the second paragraph of Johnstown Flood, "...included among their number Frick's best friend..." should be changed to "...included among their numbers..."

Can someone add the 's' to "number" please? Thanks! Travisledbetter (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Inflation?

Currently we have "During the last 18 years of his life, he gave away around $350 million (roughly $5.5 billion in 2021)". If I look at the Minneapolis Fed's CPI figures (https://www.minneapolisfed.org/about-us/monetary-policy/inflation-calculator/consumer-price-index-1913-) I see 1914 (towards the end of the 18 year period) with a CPI of 10.0 and 2021 at 271.0 - which would make his $350 million into $9.5 billion in 2021. Which seems a lot more realistic and in my view probably an underestimate. Cross Reference (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)