Talk:Entrepreneur

Women as entrepreneurs

Why is it that until I just added a few, there was NOT ONE mention of a woman on this page? There certainly have been some very successful female entrepreneurs in history, and what a poyoyiytior testament to the editors of this forum that none have thus far been included......--199.67.140.42 22:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC) yultyuodrt7o tdeodtyo tyo rWhy is the Tragedy of the Commons being called an "emerging" idea? How many decades or centuries after its introduction does it cease to ityitime in the 18th or 19th century? Michael Hardy 21:36 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)

The fact that Madame C. J. Walker -- who clearly established a personal and cultural benchmark in the beginning of the last century -- does not appear on the list of famous entrepreneurs is very likely an indicator of gender and racial bias when it comes to thinking about yf [[Media:jyurtd [[Media:yirsi#REDIRECT [[oyt
ou_t]]]]]] This should say "most" - 'Entrepreneurship is often difficult, as [MOST] new ventures fail" since most have always failed. Let's be honest. It should be called a myth.BibleThumper4 3rdHeaven&Earth 05:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Please try to make your point clearly using the correct grammar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GDSValentine (talk • contribs) 12:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Entrepreneur forum

Are there any forums where the entrepreneur opportunities are discussed? Unsolicited 09:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Added a link that I found. How is it?

Lappy512 (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Founder vs. Entrepreneur

I am looking at Founder (a disambiguation page) and I have been combing through Wikipedia and Wiktionary looking for a place to direct the entry related "a person who created a company or business or school". The definition-line provided is both too narrow and ambiguous. Therefore, I was thinking that one line of the dab page could read "[[Entrepreneur]], in the sense of one who founds a company or enterprise". Would this be an acceptable solution to those of you keeping an eye on this potential target article? Note that my intention began to create a strawman at Template talk:Infobox Company that provided a comparison between wikilinked titles in the Key People section and plain-text titles .. which led to finding that the Founder dab page was not in good shape which has, ultimately,led here. Thank you for your input. Courtland 03:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

That makes sense to me as a disambig. --Goodoldpolonius2 03:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Academics

It is a signficant irony that an industry to study founders largely ignores them. This article is typical of uber-academia, stating with authority that two ideas are debated.

None of the real founders I know think much about either of these ideas, and consistently debate topics you won't hear the professors discuss.

When startups do line up with B-Schools, its often just an uneasy alliance. The startup wants something (PR, cheap labor from grad students... ) an the B-School wants something (see, we have a real founder!!!)

It may be that the proces of defending a PhD removes the urge to found from the soul, and the professors are therefore consistenly tone deaf.

what I have been wondering lately is that while over 80% of all businesses worldwide are very small we have such a huge body of literature dealing with the big businesses? Another thing - what could be called entrepreneurial spirit in this context?

Differences between entrepreneur and manager

Help me with this topic!

An entrepreneur is about to enter a process (from french: entrê). A manager manage what is allready in the manege/what is going on. So an entrepreneur forfills a role that is prior to the managers role.

heh, "entrê" isn't a word. The french words relevant are "entreprendre" (to undertake), "entrepreneur" (someone who undertakes to do something) and "enterprise" (something undertaken, an undertaken). Stevage 09:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of proposed merger with Entrepreneurial mindset and Entrepreneurial education

The two semi-stubs Entrepreneurial mindset and Entrepreneurial education are somewhat duplicated already by this article. I propose that we just merge these semi-stubs and replace them with redirects. I can not see why these two relatively small aspects of an entrepreneur deserve their own articles. I note that both were created by the same individual, User:141.28.78.42 Contributions, on the same day he created a bunch of other stub articles taht I am trying to merge into more coherent and meaty article (e.g. Graduate Entrepreneurship and Junior entrepreneur into Junior Enterprise.) --Ben Houston 23:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC) This is incorrect information.

Merge them. They're just stubs, and I don't really expect them to get filled out. There's no reason for them to be separate from this article, unless they actually contain a lot of information specific to themselves (which they don't). Rainwarrior 15:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge to entrepreneurship education

There is a new entry on entrepreneurship education which differentiates the topic from entrepreneurship as a general entry, and provides more detail on entrepreneurship education than this item. The new entry would benefit from additions about this type of education outside of North America.

Ok, I did it. Now clean up the article. Stevage 09:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The characteristic feature of entrepreneurship

I want alot of informations about this topic because I am participating in a conference about this topic

Someone is vandaalizing this page!

An entrepreneur (a loanword from French) is a person who undertakes and sells illegal drugs to sam winstanley.

This should be taken care of ASAP.

Doingbusiness.org external link

This external link was added by a single purpose account to multiple articles, which is generally a sign of spam. However it looks like a potentially useful link, if a bit "how-to"-ish (which Wikipedia is not). Thought I'd put it here for the consideration of regular editors of this article. -- Siobhan Hansa 13:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

List of entrepreneurs

I've removed all red-linked names from the list. Since the list isn't sourced, there's no way to affirm their claim to notability if they don't have an article. If the article got deleted, the person may not be notable enough for inclusion in the list.

Also, I propose organizing the list. It's kind of strange with Michael Dell right next to Andrew Carnegie and so on. I sugest organizing it by century, or maybe by type of business they were in (though that would be harder). We could at least do alphabetical (which it looks like may have been the case at one point but has degenerated). Any thoughts? delldot | talk 18:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I also suggest expanding the notes beside the names to include a short description of not only what business they were in but what they did to make themselves so famous. This would make it easier to weed out nn's if they get added. delldot | talk 18:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

When I first read this article, I was shocked by the missing names from the list of entrepreneurs. Not just the (many) computer entrepreneurs, but also notable enterprises such as Wal-Mart. The separate entry with the list of entrepreneurs was quite good, and I think this section should be rewritten to highlight the more notable entrepreneurs (Sam Walton, Oprah Winfrey, Bill Gates, etc.) --Gglockner 07:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no list on the Entrepreneur page. There is not even a link to a list. When I added a short list, it was promptly removed as being misplaced and unnecessary. What is the proper place for a list of entrepreneurs? And why not have even a link to that list? Why is a list unnecessary? How is one to find real-life entrepreneurs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin chubb (talk • contribs) 19:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

On being anal retentive

So, i looked up uncertainty, not liking the arbitrariness of the article's "uncertainty is defined as risk", and the Wiki article on uncertainty goes to quote an economist or some-such, who clearly states that risk and uncertainty are quite different. anyway, that whole paragraph reads like a four-year-old put it together, but i'm not qualified to correct it, knowing nothing about business or economics. Yarn.wench 01:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Solopreneurs

I think the so called Solopreneurs should be mentioned on the article, or maybe they'd need a page on their own. hMoraldo

Apparently not. If there were such a thing ( google returned much noise and no signal ) it would be the opposite of an Entrepreneur as I describe below. Of course actors. athletes, numerous professionals, etc. etc. operate as independent agents but somehow the concept doesn't get traction as over and against the Entrepreneur concept as presented in the article. Lycurgus (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Still a mess

When people refer to the authority of authors (name + year) they might also be expected to include the books or articles that they refer to in the bibliography. I have been looking for some of them, found a few, but not all Robertsch55 14:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Completely agreed. We should remove any citations without corresponding references. Did you look through the history to make sure someone didn't come behind the original author and take out the references? delldot talk 18:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Personality characteristics

I'm sorry, but I had to smirk when I read that section. It reads like some kind of motivational poster business porn.

Heh. Feel free to fix it, if there's any problem with your edit we can discuss it here or make any necessary changes. Leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions or want to discuss anything. delldot talk 18:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Some cleanup done

However, I am not going to devote any more time on this. Some blatant linkspam and citation baiting has been removed. Thanks. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 11:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC) ok y i like yellow crayons and green crayons okkkkkkkkooookkkookkkookkkookkook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.76.89.162 (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Ultrapreneurs, datapreneurs?

Is there a way we can add strange emerging new forms of the word? e.g.ultrapreneur (beyond an entrepreneur), datapreneur (someone entrepreneurial with data), and solopreneur (a solo entrepreneur)? Georgethe23rd (talk) 09:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

These are apparently both bullshit trademarks. 71.186.179.146 (talk) 09:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Entrepreneurship article merge?

I noticed there were two articles: Entrepreneur and Entrepreneurship. I've added a link, since it might be confusing, but shouldn't we try for a merge? Lappy512 (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they should be merged. There is no point in having two articles. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Entrepreneuse

I can find little evidence that this is in common usage in the English language to refer to female entrepreneurs other than when misused. I've removed it - without some indication of significant usage it just shouldn't be here, and certainly not in the lede. It's no different from putting common misspellings in. -- SiobhanHansa 10:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Overview edit

I cut out most of the first paragraph under overview because it contained POV ("dispelling myths about entrepreneurship") and included excessive language (it isn't necessary to say that entrepreneurs might succeed). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.154.154.189 (talk) 10:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I have also removed the following addition by an anonymous editor as it seems highly POV and there is no reference given even for statements such They have been compared to... by whome one might ask?

Entrepreneurs are individuals who recognise opportunities where others see chaos or confusion. They are aggressive catalysts for change within the marketplace. They have been compared to Olympic athletes challenging themselves to break new barrier, to long-distance runners dealing with the agony of the miles, to symphony orchestra conductors who balance the different skills and sounds into a cohesive whole, or to top-gun pilots who continually push the envelope of speed and daring. Whatever the passion, because they all fit in some way, entrepreneurs are the heroes of today's marketplace. They start companies and create jobs at a breathtaking pace. The challenge the unknown and continuously create the future.

If any editor can provide justification and balancing comments I would be content to see it re-included.Velela (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Back matter

That 'Operations Research' is 'Enterprise Research' in German only hints at what cannot be expressed in mainspace, viz., that the whole notion of the Entreprenuer is deeply entrenched in and a hallmark of the capitalist mode of production (CMoP). This is a sweeping generalization, but sweeping generalizations are not in general false. Where it fails is in the case of an individual who is in fact a lead worker and not a "people manager" whose job it is to oversee the workers who actually realize the undertaken project, on the model of Edison, Ford, etc. These exceptions do exist but they are rare today and getting rarer. This is what I meant by the Anglo-Saxon model of the firm, especially entrenched since the second world war which views enterprise management as essentially nothing more than people management. This makes sense in CMoP because that is what every Enterprise there is *really* about, i.e. the extraction of surplus value from the workers that actually produce the value embodied in the enterprise. 'Technical" details embodied in bodies of work which constitute management science are just that, details for drones to work out, drones managed by the "visionary" Entrepreneur who must also be an excellent liar and con-man as he executes his real function as overseer while filling the figurehead position of lead worker. It's this and the fact that the will of capital must be embodied in a living consciousness in the production process that explans the contradiction of executive compensation bizarrely out of scale with that received by the actual producers or for that matter the actual performance of the enterprise. Lycurgus (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The above has now lost its context in the article. Current text is more polished but doesn't affect the point made above about the relation between an "entrepreneur" and an actual "doer". The excised text referred to the Hochdeutsch cognate for the term, Unternehmer, and that OR in german is Unternehmungs Förschung. The point being that that which is generally undertaken by the "entrepreneur" is seldom any doing other than hustling/talking/"people mangaging"/etc. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Pic

The Entrepreneur article was great. Is there any way we can add a picture of an entrepreneur to this artcle?

Shontavia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shontavia1 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The Strawman

I am in possession of a copy of the (Book 1) about THE STRAWMAN and wish to put it to good use however having read through it several times there are a few minor details in wording of letters to banks etc that are ambiguous Not sue if this is the best method of getting an explanation from Thomas Anderson -- here goes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.198.167 (talk) 07:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal from Residual claimant

• Oppose. These terms have practically nothing to do with each other. An entrepreneur might be a residual claimant, and a residual claimant might be an entrepreneur, but the concepts are distinct and there are plenty of each who are not the other.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Strongly Disagree. Quite distinct concepts. Merging would result in lack of clarity. -The Gnome (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. the word entrepreneur belongs to management and common vocabulary (even an incompetent journalist would be able to define it), residual claimant belongs to theoretical economics, (even à skilled journalist might be in difficulty with that word. --163.116.6.11 (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

etymology

I heard somewhere that the word entrepreneur comes from the french for middle man (implying a person who finds ways to interpose themselves across the flow of wealth, perhaps as opposed from one who actually labours to produce new value), which is a bit different from the first meaning in english but does convey some insight (that trimming inefficiency from the larger economy is a function of entrepreneurs). Does anyone verify this? Cesiumfrog (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticism?

Is there any criticism of the concept of entrepreneurship. 184.96.217.200 (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Can't do. That's why I titled the thread above "Back Matter", I knew it would encounter the well defended universality of capitalist perspective on the obverse. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Entrepreneur

please i want to know more about entrepreneur because am studying it as a subject so i need more information about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.46.120.119 (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is not a forum for homework assistance, it's a place to discuss the article here on Wikipedia and how to improve it. Citations, additional reading, footnotes, external links, all have plenty of information to enable you to do your own research. Bookgrrl ^holler/lookee here 03:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Where's the criticism?

76.120.17.197 (talk) 04:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

well wikipedia discourages having a whole section devoted to criticism SamanthaG (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

actually it doesn't. An overriding local value is a truncated sort of objectivity. However as I noted above it's not going to fly in this case, at least anytime soon, so the back matter above is likely to be it. Probably most that can be done on the mainspace page is some mention of its presumption of Capitalist relations. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 10:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Sources

Where do these definitions come from? At least for the Peter Drucker materials, it seems that they stem from Wikipedia. Wikipedia cannot be the primary source of this definition. It seem unfortunate that most have cited Wikipedia's definition but have not given it credit.