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. |
Article policies
|
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 removed or refactored. 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. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A news item involving JPMorgan Chase was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 20 September 2013. |
JP Morgan Chase does not have the largest amount of assets, it's HSBC
Source: http://www.hsbc.com/1/PA_1_1_S5/content/assets/investor_relations/hsbc2009ir0.pdf
It has $2,4 trilj. USD of assets— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.209.37.189 ( talk) 23:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
The article alludes to Chase purchasing J.P. Morgan in the late nineties. Under the subheading "J.P. Morgan & Company" the article states, "By the late 1990s, when it was acquired by Chase Manhattan (the new company's name became JPMorgan Chase & Co.)." Please note that the merger was announced on September 13, 2000. The deal closed on January 2, 2001.— Preceding signed comment added by 81.139.9.235 ( talk) 14:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
Unsourced; no evidence of notability; could easily be mentioned at JPMorgan Chase -- Another Believer ( Talk) 04:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
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,
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)
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)