Talk:S. C. Johnson & Son

cfd notice (renaming Category:S.C. Johnson brands)

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 16:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Scj afc copy.jpg

Image:Scj afc copy.jpg 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) 05:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Libelous comment in Environmental section?

"Although this is generally a positive addition to the traditional Windex bottle, the company could put the Greenlist logo on any of their products, no matter the ingredients, because they own the Greenlist label."

i agree, this article is trying to hard to make this company look bad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.82.146.3 (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC) I own a car, so should it be mentioned that I can potentially run someone over with it? This paragraph reads like someone is trying so hard to find something wrong with this massive company, but being unable to is just adding things to try to discredit their near spotless environmental record.68.179.102.105 (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the offending section since it was poorly written anyways. I'd suggest a complete rewrite instead of editing the former paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.102.105 (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind. Apparently moderators believe it is better to leave libelous comments in articles than remove the section completely. I'll rewrite it later if that is acceptable 68.179.102.105 (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

"S.C. Johnson, a family company" tag in ads

Think someone could pinpoint exactly *when* S.C. Johnson added that tagline at the end of their commercials, complete with bottom right-hand corner dogeared logo appearing? It might be worth noting that's how they end all their ads in the past several years. Nice little trivia tidbit, since there's a section here saying despite the large company it remains a FAMILY COMPANY (like the ads ends w/). Macshill (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)