Talk:Johnson Matthey

message: :Image:Jmatthey.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Jmatthey.gif 

message: This section seems out of proportion to the whole article. Would it be better to create a separate article for the case and summarize it here? Pterre (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: - Well not actually, but the above comment is no longer valid now. --BjKa (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmental crimes 

message: It might have been Johnson Matthey which made losses in the 1970's when a customer failed to produce a margin call in silver.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.189.26 (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This was in about 1973.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.189.26 (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Losses in silver 

message: The article currently says "Most of JMB's business was sold to Mase Westpac". Now this is not very helpful, inasmuch as 1.: Nobody knows who or what a Mase Westpac is, unless someone describes it further, and 2.: It seems that Mase Westpac has in the meantime been bought by Republic New York, which in the meantime has been bought by HSBC. Now does this mean that JM is now a full subsidiary of HSBC? Who now holds JMB's seat on the London Goldfixing? --BjKa (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I would add that the amount of focus given to Johnson Matthey Bankers in this article is inappropriate given how long ago it was and the lack of relevance to the business today. Perhaps it would be better in its own article? Jonny Wing Johnson Matthey (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ownership 

message: Hello everyone. This article is extremely out of date and does not reflect Johnson Matthey's current business activities or give a proper overview of the company's history. I have updated the business divisions and other key areas that are out of date / deprecated. In the interests of transparency I am an employee of Johnson Matthey – if my edits appear to be too subjective please discuss them with me on this page. Jonny Wing Johnson Matthey (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating the article to accurately reflect the business 

message: Opening a discussion on conflict of interest. Please add any areas where it is felt there is a conflict of interest here. Jgwing (talk) 11:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You agree that Johnson Matthey press releases are too subjective, proceed to add them anyway and then wonder why people might see a conflict of interest here? I'd strongly advise you not to edit the article directly but to suggest specific improvements here on the talk page. Huon (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the potential concern for conflict of interest and that is why I am opening comment on any areas that may be seen in that light. However, the article was previously very patchy and in some areas inaccurate (three business divisions). There are also some areas where I am unable to find an alternative reference. For example, details of the Sustainability 2017 programme – where would a better reference exist? Is it better to have no references than corporate website references? I would have thought a corporate website reference is better than none, given the encyclopaedic nature of this site. Your advice on this would be appreciated! Jgwing (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of interest