Talk:Johnson & Johnson

Referencing sub-companies

I think there are two missing categories or terms:

• JNJ family of companies
• JNJ credo

I dont think "tylenol scare" should be in this article Arigont

First, what is "tylenol scare"? Second, is it good practice to delete without giving other Wikipedia standards and default cases? I am sure other companies reference sub-companies, too? Joerg Kurt Wegner 19:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

"tylenol scare" was when people were putting cyanide into tylenol capsules. It's important because this is what led to the tamper-proof packaging that modern pharmaceutics come in. It's also interesting to note that J&J no long produces capsules because of this. I agree that the credo should be mentioned because it is the credo that drove the massive tylenol recall at great expense to the company...209.74.0.248 22:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I restored the section because I think it is an important event in the history of the company. What is the reason for deleting it? --Ed (Edgar181) 19:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

J&J use of the Red Cross

Please do NOT insert any more claims that the U.S. is violating the Geneva Conventions by permitting J&J to continue its trademark on the Red Cross. It is correct that, as a rule, the Geneva Conventions do not specifically provide for national exceptions to their reservation of the emblems of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement for specific international uses (except for a clause in Protocol III as to pre-2005 uses of the Red Crystal). However, U.S. ratification of the 1949 Conventions contained two reservations where the U.S. specifically disclaimed parts of the Conventions; one of those, as I just added to this article, permits J&J's pre-1905 use of the Red Cross to continue with minor exceptions. This is in addition to several principles of U.S. law that would likely prevent overruling J&J's trademark without legal condemnation of the trademark (and payment to J&J) by an act of Congress asserting eminent domain. --RBBrittain 23:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Why I am planning to replace the current photo in the article with a new photo

The current photo has several major faults:

1. Poor contrast. 2. Poor color balancing (too blue). 3. Shot at an angle slightly towards the sun (as evidenced by the shadow) when superior angles are available (I just visited New Brunswick, so I can personally attest to this). 4. Shot in winter when the trees look half-dead and therefore very ugly.

Within a week (as soon as I do final cropping, rotating, and color correction) I will be uploading a replacement which I just shot, at a better angle and in the best season (summer). Any objections before I delete the old photo from this article? --Coolcaesar 04:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No objections have been posted, so I'm getting ready to post my new version right now. --Coolcaesar 20:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Coolcaesar 21:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

PVC Section is Biased AND Unnecessary

I'm all for safe products, but did anyone actually look at the "source" for the PVC section. The "Environmental News Service" story (currently reference #7, typo and all) is singly sourced to an anti-PVC campaign organization.

To boot, the section is poorly written, and is out of place. Why does a primer on PVC belong in the middle of this article?

So, does a spuriously referenced, badly written, largely irrelevant paragraph merit deletion? 208.105.19.114 (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The section on PVC does seem to be out of place and unnecessary. It should probably be removed per WP:UNDUE. But there does seem to be relevant information at the end of the paragraph such as efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emission, etc. If no one objects, I'll remove it soon. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Product list

This isn't very accurate. Zyrtec for example is a UCB product, marketed by McNeil in the USA, but by UCB in rest of the world. Putting it there as supposedly wholy owned jnj product is just incorrect.

This probably goes for a number of other products as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.206.74.130 (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Litigation

I removed a paragraph from the litigation section because it was about something that was essentially a non-event. The threatened litigation was never carried out. Per Wikipedia's policy WP:UNDUE, I think this was not at all an important event in J&J history and should therefore not be included in an the article. In contrast, one of the most important litigation events in J&J history (the suit against Abbott) was not included in the article. So I added a paragraph about that. I think the net result is a more balanced article that better reflects the history of the company. CockpitJim (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)