Contents

Talk:JPMorgan Chase

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the JPMorgan Chase article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 91 days

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about JPMorgan Chase. Any such comments may be removedorrefactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about JPMorgan Chase at the Reference desk.

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Companies Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments New York City Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Finance & Investment High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Brands High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

A news item involving JPMorgan Chase was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 20 September 2013.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on JPMorgan Chase. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090122224028/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103tohttps://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a9FHelZ13yFM&refer=news
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613163056/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087tohttps://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aExgpC1XyF7g
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100321165747/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102tohttps://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=a.938AxCO1mU&refer=uk
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100131100131/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aKdo.y7rr1ys&pos=3tohttps://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aKdo.y7rr1ys&pos=3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see the pay ratio, and possibly associated data like median pay and CEO pay added to the infobox. I have mentioned this article where I requested a "pay ratio" parameter be added to the infobox for that purpose: Template_talk:Infobox_company#Pay_ratio. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced; no evidence of notability; could easily be mentioned at JPMorgan Chase --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You know, you don't have to discuss trivial merges like this. You could have done it yourself. - dcljr (talk) 05:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Perhaps not as trivial a merge as I first suspected, since the information itself might be considered too trivial (if correct) to survive anywhere else. Even if simply redirected (without a merge), I'm not sure what the best target would be. The one suggested by Another Believer? Chase Bank?J.P. Morgan in the United Kingdom? - dcljr (talk) 03:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alan Islas (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Page has been redirected by SimonP without merging. - dcljr (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. J.P. Morgan Asset Management met a similar fate in October 2017. – wbm1058 (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While trying to find the edit (which I did eventually find; it was perpetrated at [the time and date] "03:21, 26 September 2022", and here is [a link to]: the DIFF listing!) whereby some blatant nonsense such as

"restored everything back in name of Dr Luis Enrique Valdez Rico Berkshire Hathaway Winsdor Winston Churchill king of England Brithies Conolies "

was introduced,

... I happened to notice that this edit -- the edit that created the "Revision as of 01:29, 26 September 2022" version -- "also" introduced some similarly crazy (but perhaps unrelated?) blatant nonsense. Oh wait! ('never mind'!); That edit -- the edit "of 01:29, 26 September 2022" -- has [apparently] since been reverted!

So ... shouldn't the 'other' culprit -- the one that I was searching for, and that I finally found -- also be reverted? (See [the link to] "the DIFF listing" above.)

And: shouldn't some steps be taken, to try to detect and revert such [instances of] blatant nonsense in the future? I think it is worth giving some thought to the question of what should / could be done.

Thanks for listening!

Oh, wait a minute;
Update!:
It now seems that ALL of the edits to this article since "Revision as of 11:02, 25 September 2022" -- (by "AnomieBOT") <--[QUOTE: "(Dating maintenance tags: {{Cn}})"]

except for one -- which was also by AnomieBOT -- where the edit comment began with "(Reverting possible vandalism [...]"

were ALL blatant nonsense and should be reverted. I do not do such "wholesale" reverting very often; but I intend to do some now. I will go to the "Revision as of 11:02, 25 September 2022" version -- ("by AnomieBOT") and just ... "edit" that, (and maybe add a blank, somewhere in a place where it will not hurt) and ... in the edit comment, I will reference (that is, mention, and link to) this section of this "Talk:" page.

I fully expect a warning, ... to the effect that I will be wiping out several edits, "since" 11:02, 25 September 2022. Duly noted! I guess I will read that warning, but ... (IMHO) in this case it ["wiping out several edits"] is exactly what is needed.

Thanks for your patience!

PS: Should we ^H^H someone be "considering" making this article "semi- protected"? or something like that?

THANK YOU! Mike Schwartz (talk) 07:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that ... it seems that, all of the "possible vandalism" between the "Revision as of 11:02, 25 September 2022" and the Revision as of 01:53, 26 September 2022 has already been reverted ... by a bot called "ClueBot NG", during the edit -- (here is [a link to] the DIFF) -- that created the "Revision as of 01:53, 26 September 2022".

So, hence, to avoid confusion, and to simplify things, ... when I fire up the WABAC machine, or the magical "Revision history" machine, there is no need to go any further back than ... the version by "ClueBot NG" that reverted some "possible vandalism" at 01:53 on 26 September 2022.

So ... I apologize if the mention [above] about going all the way back to "11:02, 25 September 2022" (and wiping out several edits since then) caused anyone to have a heart attack (figuratively). The "reverting" need not go any further back, than ... the "Revision as of 01:53, 26 September 2022" version.

I hope this helps. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 08:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In January 2023, an anonymous user applied Undue Weight tags to several sections. No discussion has occurred, but 16 months of editing has. Should we remove the tags, since anon provided no guidance then, and no discussion has occurred since? 17:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC) Ishu (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion here. Imcdc Contact 02:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ptrnext, Castncoot, Epicgenius, UnitedStatesian, GoingBatty At the link provided above, Imcdc has opened a debate regarding which figures (if any) should qualify as JPMorgan Chase's founders. If you have an opinion on the matter, please take a moment to share your opinions there.Emiya1980 (talk) 03:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanscottwalker, Epistulae ad Familiares, Saved by God's grace, Thenightaway, Nurg, and AEMoreira042281:Emiya1980 (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]