Talk:Intrapreneurship

Is this article covering the same topic as Intrepreneur? If so, they should be merged. This one appears to be the correct name, or at least the more widely-used one. Robofish (talk) 12:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed, again, the reference "Howard Edward Haller (now a Ph.D.) documented (as his Master's-in-Management thesis, “Intrapreneurship”) a four-year (1977–1980) case study of a successful intrapreneurship (viz. PR1ME Computer Inc.’s PR1ME Leasing Division) in 1981. The paper was published by VDM Verlag Dr. Müller AG & CoKG, in 2009, as Intrapreneurship Success: A PR1ME Example. [ref. ISBN 978-3-639-17509-7 Amazon.com]" as both Norman McRae of the Economist and the American Heritage Dictionary both attribute the term Intrapreneurship to Gifford Pinchot III. If Haller wishes to dispute the original usage he needs independent validation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristopherA (talk • contribs) 00:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have confirmed via physical print press (e.g., a physical copy of The Economist) that Pinchot is the originator of the term. The original term is Intrepreneur -- Intrepreneurship is a later evolution. TheNewGuy (talk) 07:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More Edits Needed

This entry reads like a promotion for consulting services with circular citations (back to founder of concept). Intrepreneurship remains noteworthy because it continues to be referenced in various books and media. However, I believe that the concept itself has outgrown the founder and evolved into its own. TheNewGuy (talk) 07:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to other thought entries, this one lacks an outline of ideas/concepts. Leaning toward Pinchot's book (since that's the one I read). Any counter ideas/comments before I begin would be appreciated. TheNewGuy (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find it somewhat concerning that entries like this exist at all. This is not meaningful knowledge. It's a cute word play with latin roots that is used without substance to bolster business careers. It means whatever someone wants it to mean. The whole article should be the phrase 'bullshit designed to justify someone's career choices in the role of management'. If wikipedia documents all the nonsense words that people invent to make themselves sound important, its usefulness as a resource for understanding business will fall off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.27.9.20 (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]