Talk:JPMorgan Chase

External links modified
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=20601103 to https://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=20601087 to https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aExgpC1XyF7g
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100321165747/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102 to https://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=3 to https://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.

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

Pay ratio -- add to info box
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. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge of The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. London into JPMorgan Chase
Unsourced; no evidence of notability; could easily be mentioned at JPMorgan Chase -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 04:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Support ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Support Alan Islas (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Page has been redirected by without merging. - dcljr (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. J.P. Morgan Asset Management met a similar fate in October 2017. – wbm1058 (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

nonsense (at least 2 edits since 11:02, 25 Sept 2022)
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)

slight update
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)

Undue Weight (Jan 2023 additions)
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)

RFC: Who the founders are of merged banks
See discussion here.  Imcdc  Contact  02:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * ,, , , 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)
 * Emiya1980 (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)