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 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)

The point remains that Greenlist is useless as an objective measure of, well, pretty much anything, seeing as it is not a third-party standard. It essentially misleads consumers, whether or not SC Johnson intended that or not. Link: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/01/greenwash_watch_16.php. Dewert (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2010 (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)


 * The name/branding change was done in 1998 -- 205.175.124.30 (talk) 02:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Johnson wax
Did Johnsons wax come in a rectangular can back in the 60's and 70's and was it a creamy liquid?69.246.198.178 (talk) 05:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Update on case related to former SC Johnson employee Michael DeGuelle
My name is Jam Stewart and I work for SC Johnson. The description listed in the controversy section on the main page is misleading and I wanted to provide some additional information and facts around this issue involving a former SC Johnson employee. On June 1, 2011, in a separate case based on essentially the same facts as the Federal RICO claim, a Wisconsin state court concluded that Mr. DeGuelle’s claims of tax fraud defamed the company and awarded S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. damages. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in its April 9, 2010 decision held that Mr. DeGuelle’s RICO complaint stated a legally recognized cause of action and returned the case to the Federal District Court for Mr. DeGuelle to prove his allegations. The Federal District Court on May 29, 2012 again dismissed Mr. DeGuelle’s RICO claim deciding that the Wisconsin state court’s determination that no tax fraud had occurred would be applied to the RICO claim. No claims of tax fraud or for additional taxes have been made by any agency, such as the IRS, beyond Mr. DeGuelle. --Jstewart11 (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on S. C. Johnson & Son. 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://archive.is/20170209165431/http://www.connexionfrance.com/court-appeal-price-fixing-fine-upheld-consumer-companies-gillette-loreal-procter-gamble-sc-johnson-18567-view-article.html to http://www.connexionfrance.com/court-appeal-price-fixing-fine-upheld-consumer-companies-gillette-loreal-procter-gamble-sc-johnson-18567-view-article.html

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) 05:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Changes
Hello, I am the archivist & historian for SC Johnson and I would like to propose a series of updates to the Wikipedia entry "S. C. Johnson & Son". I acknowledge that I have a conflict of interest and am also fairly new to Wikipedia so I welcome suggestions and comments through this process. I tried to structure this request as defined in the edit request instructions but let me know if I need to clarify, provide additional sources, etc. This request is purely to correct some factual inaccuracies, fill in some time gaps as well as provide verifiable sources.

1st paragraph under S. C. Johnson & Son Change: ”(commonly referred to as S. C. Johnson, previously S. C. Johnson Wax and Johnson Wax)”

Change To: “(commonly referred to as SC Johnson, previously SC Johnson Wax and Johnson Wax)”

Remove: “It is the largest component of the Johnson Family Enterprises, which also includes the Johnson Financial Group, and Johnson Outdoors.”

Reasoning: The company is directly owned by the Johnson family. Johnson Family Enterprises does not exist and the linked page was previously removed as per deletion request. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Johnson_Family_Enterprises)

Change: “In 2006, S.C. Johnson & Son employed approximately 13,000 and had estimated sales of $7.5 billion.”

Change to: “In 2017, SC Johnson employed approximately 13,000 and had estimated sales of $10 billion.”

Move citation 1 to the end of the paragraph and replace with: “How Fisk Johnson Works to Keep the Shine on Family Business”. The Wall Street Journal. March 10, 2016. Retrieved January 11, 2017. (link: https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-fisk-johnson-works-to-keep-the-shine-on-family-business-1457605802)

Move wiki sentence currently at the end of the history section to the introductory paragraph and Change: “Despite its large size, the company remains privately owned by the Johnson family and is currently in its fifth generation of family ownership.”

Change to: “Despite its large size, the company remains privately owned by the Johnson family.” Move wiki sentence starting with “Chairman and CEO…” to the introductory paragraph above and Change: “Chairman and CEO since 2004, Dr. Herbert Fisk Johnson III, is the fifth generation of the Johnson family to lead the company. He succeeds his father, Samuel Curtis Johnson, Jr. who died in May 2004.”

Change to: “Chairman and CEO since 2004, Dr. Herbert Fisk Johnson III, is the fifth generation of the Johnson family to lead the company. He succeeds his father, Samuel Curtis Johnson II who died in May 2004.”

Section – History

1st paragraph under History section:

Change: “Samuel Curtis Johnson, Sr.”

Change to: “Samuel Curtis Johnson”

Change: “Racine Hardware Company in 1886 and renamed it Johnson’s Prepared Paste Wax Company.”

Change to: “Racine Hardware Manufacturing Company.”

Remove: “In 1939, the first part of the Johnson Wax Building, designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, opened. Its addition, the Research Tower, opened in 1950.”

Replace with: “SC Johnson’s principle product was parquet flooring but the company quickly added other floor care products like Johnson’s Prepared Wax and weighted brushes.”

Reasoning: The article as written skips ahead fifty years and, if possible, I would like to briefly fill in some of those gaps.

Move current citation 3 to the end of this first paragraph.

New paragraph: “Under the leadership of Herbert F. Johnson, Sr., the company expanded worldwide and established its first subsidiary in England in 1914. In 1917, Herbert introduced profit sharing at a company-wide celebration where $35,000 was shared. (add first citation listed below) At the ten-year anniversary of the company’s profit sharing program, Johnson explained “The goodwill of the people is the only enduring thing in any business. It is the sole substance – the rest is shadow.” “ (add second citation listed below)

Citations for above: “Johnson Gives His Employes [sic] Credit for Successful Year”. The Racine Journal-News. December 22,1917. “Herbert F. Johnson Dies, Victim of Heart Disease”. The Racine Times-Call. February 15, 1928.

New paragraph: “In 1932 SC Johnson introduced Johnson’s Glo-Coat which was the first self-polishing floor cleaner on the market. (add first citation listed below) The success of Glo-Coat bolstered the company during the Great Depression. SC Johnson’s growing line of wax-reliant products necessitated Herbert F. Johnson, Jr.’s 1935 trip to Fortaleza, Brazil in an S-38 Amphibian plane to find a direct sustainable source of wax.” (add citation listed below)

Citations for above: “New Product Is Now On Market”. The Racine Journal-News. April 29, 1932.

”Wax Hunt”. TIME. October 14, 1935.

Paragraph Beginning with From April 1935…:

Change: “each episode featured an appearance by pitchman and Johnson representative Harlow Wilcox.”

Change to: “each episode featured an appearance by pitchman Harlow Wilcox.” Changed

Add Citation at end of the paragraph: Stumpf, Charles & Tom Price. Heavenly Days: The Story of Fibber McGee & Molly. The World of Yesterday. Waynesville: North Carolina. 1987.

Paragraph Beginning with “Also during the 1950s…”: Combine with previous paragraph. Changed

Change: “Also during the 1950s,” Change to:” During the 1950s, “ Change: “…Swanson, also co-sponsoring Robert Montgomery Presents on NBC, and later on CBS, The Red Skelton Show. Change To: “…Swanson. The company went on to co-sponsor Robert Montgomery Presents on NBC and The Red Skelton Show on CBS.” (add citation listed below)

Citation for Above: “S.C. Johnson & Son”. Ad Age. September 15, 2003. Retrieved January 11, 2017. (Link: http://adage.com/article/adage-encyclopedia/s-c-johnson-son/98732/)

New paragraph: “In April of 1939, the Frank Lloyd Wright-designed SC Johnson Administration Building opened. Speaking about his creation, Wright said “This building was designed to be as inspiring a place to work in as any cathedral ever was to worship in”. “ (add first citation listed below) “Its addition, the Research Tower, opened in 1950, and at 153 feet-tall was one of the world’s tallest buildings designed using the cantilever principle.” (add second citation listed below)

Citations for above: “New Frank Lloyd Wright Office Building Shows Shape of Things to Come”. LIFE. May 8, 1939.

“Speaking of Pictures”. LIFE. December 11, 1950.

New paragraph: The launch of Raid House & Garden Bug Killer in 1955 marked the company’s first major departure away from wax-based products. Within the next few years, Sam Johnson, fourth generation leader, helped to introduce some of the company’s biggest products: Glade, OFF! and Pledge. (add citation listed below)

Citation for above: “In Good Company: A Family History at SC Johnson”. CBS NEWS. October16, 2016. Retrieved January 11, 2017. (Link: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-family-history-at-sc-johnson/)

Paragraph beginning with “In 1984…”: Add Sentence after 1st sentence: “In January 2017, SC Johnson and Chairman and CEO, H. Fisk Johnson announced a $150 million donation to the Cornell SC Johnson College of Business. The gift is the largest in history for Cornell University’s Ithaca campus.” (add citation listed below)

Citation for above: “SC Johnson gifts $150M to Cornell Business School”. Press & Sun-Bulletin. Binghamton, New York. January 29, 2017. ❌ Sentence was removed per guidance at WP:NOBLECAUSE

Paragraph beginning with “In 1992…:

Change: “In 1997, S.C. Johnson expanded its roster…” Change to: “In 1998, SC Johnson expanded its roster…

Remove: “Dow Chemical purchased Texize in 1986, in which it received Fantastik and Glass Plus brand.”

Reasoning: This sentence seems off topic.

Paragraph beginning with “In 1999…” Delete sentence and citation: “In 2002 it acquired DiverseyLever to become JohnsonDiversey Inc., and in 2009, it became Diversey, Inc.”

Reasoning: Information is off topic. Removed

New Citation for sentence beginning with “In 1999…” : “Johnson Professional Gets New Name”. The Journal Times. January 19,2000. Retrieved January 12, 2018. (Link: http://journaltimes.com/johnson-professional-gets-new-name/article_7040065b-f2c1-5d9f-807b-1dcda149353b.html)

Add wiki sentence starting with “In 2015” to paragraph above and Change: “In 2015, S. C. Johnson acquired Deb Group, a global industrial company focused on hygiene and skin care systems for the industrial, commercial, healthcare and food markets, to expand its presence in industrial and institutional markets.”

Change to: “After several years away from the professional business, in 2015 SC Johnson acquired Deb Group, a global industrial company focused on hygiene and skin care systems for the industrial, commercial, healthcare and food markets, to expand its presence in industrial and institutional markets. In 2016 the company announced a new line of SC Johnson Professional products at the ISSA/INTERCLEAN conference in Chicago.” (add citation listed below)

Citation for above: “S.C. Johnson Announces Return to Industrial and Institutional Market”. Milwaukee Business Journal. October 26, 2016. Retrieved January 12, 2018. (Link: https://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2016/10/26/s-c-johnson-announces-return-to-industrial-and.html)

Remove: “The company was one of three 2006 recipients of the Ron Brown Award for corporate leadership.”

Reasoning: The award relates to Greenlist so it could be incorporated as part of the first paragraph in the section called “Environmental record”.

Paragraph beginning with “From 2005 to 2011”: Change: “From 2005 to 2011, S. C. Johnson & Son was ranked by Fortune Magazine as one of the top 10 "Companies to Work For" in their annual ranking. In 2007, the company was ranked #7; in 2011, it was ranked #10.”

Change to: “From 2005 to 2007, SC Johnson was ranked by Fortune Magazine as one of the top 10 “Companies to Work For” on their “100 Best Companies To Work For” list. The company ranked #7 in 2005, #10 in 2006 and #7 in 2007. SC Johnson was in Fortune Magazine’s first listing of “100 Best Companies to Work For” in 1998.” (add citation(s) listed below) ❌ This text was either not added or removed per WP:NOTPROMOTION

Citation(s) for above: “100 Best Companies To Work For”. Fortune Magazine. January 12, 1998. “100 Best Companies To Work For”. Fortune Magazine. January 24, 2005. “100 Best Companies To Work For”. Fortune Magazine. January 23, 2006. “100 Best Companies To Work For”. Fortune Magazine. January 22, 2007.

New paragraph: “In 2008, the company acquired Caldrea, Co, maker of upscale household cleaning products including the Caldrea and Mrs. Meyers Clean Day brands. (add first citation listed below) In July 2016, the company signed an agreement to acquire Babyganics, a baby products company with products including skin care, oral care, sun care, insect repellent, diapers and wipes. (add second citation listed below) In September 2017, the company announced plans to acquire cleaning brands Method and Ecover."(add third citation below)”

Citations for above: “SC Johnson Buys Caldrea”. Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal. April 28.2008. Retrieved January 12, 2018. (Link: https://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/stories/2008/04/28/daily12.html)

“S.C. Johnson Acquires Fast-Growing Baby Products Company”. Milwaukee Business Journal. July 1, 2016. Retrieved January 12, 2018. (Link: https://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2016/07/01/sc-johnson-acquires-fast-growing-baby-products.html)

“S.C. Johnson Plans to Acquire Method, Which Has a Pullman Soap Factory”. Chicago Tribune. September 15, 2017. Retrieved January 12, 2018. (Link: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-sc-johnson-acquires-method-soap-0916-biz-20170915-story.html)

New paragraph: In 2009, the company launched WhatsInsideSCJohnson.com (link) listing ingredients in their products in North America. (add first citation listed below) In 2012, it added a comprehensive list of fragrance ingredients, called SC Johnson’s Exclusive Fragrance Palette, used in its products. SC Johnson’s Exclusive Fragrance Palette excludes ingredients that don’t meet the company’s standards. (add second citation listed below) In May 2016, the company expanded its ingredient transparency program to Europe, including 25 countries and 20 languages added to its website. (add third citation) In May 2017, SC Johnson disclosed a list of 368 potential skin allergens in its products. (add fourth citation)

Citations for above: “SC Johnson Starts Listing Product Ingredients Publicly”. GreenBiz. March 13, 2009. Retrieved January 12, 2018. (Link: https://www.greenbiz.com/news/2009/03/13/sc-johnson-starts-listing-product-ingredients-publicly)

“SC Johnson Completes Full Disclosure of Fragrance Ingredients”. Sustainable Brands. January 30, 2012. Retrieved January 15, 2018. (Link: http://www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/articles/sc-johnson-completes-full-disclosure-fragrance-ingredients)

“SC Johnson Expands Ingredient Disclosure to Europe”. Chemical Watch. May 27, 2016. Retrieved January 15, 2018. (Link: https://chemicalwatch.com/47699/sc-johnson-expands-ingredient-disclosure-to-europe)

“SC Johnson Reveals 368 Potential Skin Allergens in its Products”. Chemical Watch. May 30, 2017. Retrieved January 15, 2018. (Link: https://chemicalwatch.com/56134/sc-johnson-reveals-368-potential-skin-allergens-in-its-products)

Section – Environmental 1st paragraph: Add wiki sentence to end of the paragraph. “The company was one of three 2006 recipients of the Ron Brown Award for corporate leadership.”

Section - Vertical Summary on right side of page: Change: “S. C. Johnson”

Change to: “SC Johnson”

Change: “Founder	Samuel Curtis Johnson, Sr.”

Change to: “Founder	 Samuel Curtis Johnson”

Change: “Revenue	US$ 11.75 billion (2013)”

Change to: “Revenue	US$ 10 billion (2016)”

Remove: “Parent	Johnson Family Enterprises”

Reasoning: The company has no parent. It is directly owned by the Johnson family as it shows earlier in the summary. Johnson Family Enterprises does not exist and the linked page was previously removed as per deletion request. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Johnson_Family_Enterprises) Removed

Wax86 (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

✅ Please see individual comments above for information about your request.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   00:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I really appreciate your updates and will work to address the items you called out in your comments. Wax86 (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Changes
Hi, I am the archivist / historian for SC Johnson. I have been working on some proposed edits to this Wikipedia article (S. C. Johnson & Son) to bring the information to present day and provide citations. Some changes, as seen in the request above, have already been partially implemented. I acknowledge that I have a conflict of interest. This request is purely to update historical information and provide additional impartial citations. As I am new to editing and my last request was somewhat confusing I have posted the proposed revision of the introduction and history sections in my sandbox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wax86/sandbox  Could someone impartial review and make edits if appropriate?

Also, could the bottom-most blue banner reading “Johnson Family Enterprises” be removed? Johnson Family Enterprises does not exist and the linked page was previously removed as per deletion request. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Johnson_Family_Enterprises)

Thanks! Wax86 (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Reply quotebox with inserted reviewer decisions and feedback 23-APR-2018
Below you will see where text from your request has been quoted with individual advisory messages placed underneath, either accepting, declining or otherwise commenting upon your proposal(s). Please see the enclosed notes for additional information about each request. 0.70em 20:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

proposed changes
Hi, I am the archivist and historian for SC Johnson and as I have a conflict of interest I would like the request a few additional small edits to the Wikipedia site for S. C. Johnson & Son. Could the term “Johnson Family Enterprises”  be removed from Categories? Johnson Family Enterprises does not exist and the linked page was previously removed as per deletion request. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Johnson_Family_Enterprises) In the Info box: Change founder name to Samuel Curtis Johnson. Samuel Curtis Johnson would not be considered a Sr. because his son didn’t have the same name. ((https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffix_(name)#Generational_title) Change Revenue to 10 billion (in reference to citation 2 on the page and also the opening paragraph) Update number of Employees to 13,000 (in reference to citation 2 on the page and also the opening paragraph) In the bottom-most bar change Samuel Curtis Johnson, Sr. to  Samuel Curtis Johnson and Samuel Curtis Johnson, Jr. to  Sam Johnson.  The name skips two generations so they would not be referred to as Sr. or Jr. ((https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffix_(name)#Generational_title)

Thanks for your consideration! Wax86 (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Reply 09-MAY-2018
✅ Regards, .   spintendo ⋅ ⋅ )  19:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) The suffix in the infobox was dropped.
 * 2) The category "Johnson Family Enterprises" was deleted from the article.
 * 3) The suffix as it appears in the template at the bottom of the page may be changed only through requests placed at the template's talk page. That request would likely be declined, as the individual article's from where the template derives its information uses those given suffixes.
 * 4) Please provide the references for changes to the employee count and financial numbers here on the talk page.

Requested information for proposed change
Thanks for all of your edits! Here is the reference citation for the employee count and financial numbers. It can also be found here.

In the Info box:


 * revenue = US$ 10 billion


 * revenue_year = 2017


 * num_employees = 13,000

Also, I am just wondering if the article is now cited accordingly and the verification notice can be removed from the top? Wax86 (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Wax86 (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Reply 10-MAY-2018
✅ .   spintendo ⋅ ⋅ )  00:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) The employee count was updated.
 * 2) The infobox type used for this article contains parameters labeled revenue, operating income, net income, aum, assets and equity. These are, of course, all used to record a company's financial information. However, the figure of 10 bn given by the company's website is described as a sales figure. "Sales" as a financial term in the context of businesses is a subset of revenue. That is, revenue of the business which includes other income from investments or licenses or interest on debts, as well as sales income. For some businesses that extend credit or have investments, it is possible that a "sales" figure would not equal revenue, in which case it would not be appropriate to use that number in the revenue parameter. Before I make this change, I just wanted to caution you as the COI editor that some editors would consider this to be two different things (sales vs revenue) so if you could confirm with the company that they are alright with using a figure they have described as "sales" in the revenue parameter, then I will make the change. Please advise. When ready to proceed, please change the edit request template's answer parameter to read from ans=yes to ans=no Thank you.

Proposed Changes
Hi, I am the archivist and historian for SC Johnson. I acknowledge I have a conflict of interest and would like to request a factual update to the first paragraph in the Controversy section talking about a RICO lawsuit against the company in 2012. My suggested edit is below. Please let me know if you need any clarification. Thanks! Wax86 (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

After further review of the case, the RICO lawsuit was dismissed on May 29, 2012 by U.S. District Judge J.P. Stadtmueller due to preclusion grounds. On June 5th, 2013 the Wisconsin Court of Appeals ruled in favor of SC Johnson on all counts.

Reply 28-MAY-2019
Regards, Spintendo  19:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The suggested prose does not state why the DeGuelle lawsuit was denied, in particular, DeGuelle's failure to procure any other witnesses beyond himself as well as further witness testimony provided in an affidavit.

Thanks! I will rework with more detail. Wax86 (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed Changes
Hi, I am the archivist and historian for SC Johnson and I acknowledge I have a conflict of interest. I had previously requested an addition/edit to the first paragraph of the controversy section and it was declined because the information presented was not specific enough. I have revised to include more detail on this court case. Let me know if this edit is acceptable. Thank you, as always, for your consideration. Wax86 (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The claim was then reviewed as Case No. 10-CV-103-JPS in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The Court ruled to dismiss the RICO lawsuit on the grounds of preclusion. In the written judgement dated May 29, 2012, U.S. District Judge J.P. Stadtmueller explains “In cases such as this, in which the main issues have already been determined, the Court should not spend further judicial resources entertaining the relitigation of such matters.” To determine preclusion, the Court looked at five factors and of them decided that three weighed in favor and two were neutral. Preclusion was deemed an appropriate ruling because the case was already under appeal in Wisconsin’s Court of Appeals, DeGuelle did not present any new evidence, witnesses or a sworn affidavit to refute the expert witness affidavit submitted by SC Johnson, and both sides were treated equally with the expectation that they produce evidence to sufficiently argue their position.

The case was ultimately decided on the state level in District II of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals when the Court, in Appeal No. 2011AP2427 affirmed an earlier ruling of the Racine County Circuit Court in favor of SC Johnson for defamation related to unsubstantiated tax claims, and breach of a confidentiality agreement.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wax86 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Regards, Spintendo  04:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) The claims from DeGuelle regarding tax evasion were ultimately never resolved. The Court claimed that "such facts remain 'disputed.'"  Thus, the description of the case needs to include Judge Stadtmeuller's claim that the Court’s consideration of the defendants' motion for summary judgment was the overriding concern, and that the legality of S.C. Johnson's actions (and whether those actions did, in fact, occur) was "of no importance"  because the defendant's witness testimony was never rebutted via an affidavit.
 * 2) As a counter proposal, I feel that since the claims in the lawsuit were never resolved, the entire issue might benefit from being omitted from the article. Items which are unresolved are ultimately problematic for articles, and I believe that readers appreciate it when doors that are opened in articles are eventually shut. As this lawsuit was resolved without the main issue of tax evasion being settled in a meaningful way, the door that this section of text opens—remains opened. I would be interested in seeing a proposal to have that section omitted, or at least to see the input of other local editors on this matter, which would be very helpful.
 * 3) The COI editor is reminded to sign all talk page posts with four tildes. Such signatures are to be placed immediately preceding reference or notes sections at the end of an editor's entire post.

I've begun a discussion at the WikiProject Wisconsin talk page concerning this edit request in order to solicit other editor's input, which I hope will be helpful in determining how best to proceed. Regards, Spintendo  09:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, please let me know if you need additional information from me at this point. Wax86 (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposed Changes
Hi, I am the archivist and historian for SC Johnson and I acknowledge I have a conflict of interest. I had previously requested an addition/edit to the first paragraph of the controversy section and the content editor was reaching out for additional input from other editors to determine if the section was necessary to the article. Should the content editor want to update this section as opposed to omitting it, I have revised and included the additional information that was requested in #1 of the content editor's last reply. Please let me know if this is an acceptable edit.

The claim was then reviewed as Case No. 10-CV-103-JPS in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The Court ruled to dismiss the RICO lawsuit on the grounds of preclusion. In the written judgement dated May 29, 2012, U.S. District Judge Judge J.P. Stadtmueller explains “In cases such as this, in which the main issues have already been determined, the Court should not spend further judicial resources entertaining the relitigation of such matters.” To determine preclusion, the Court looked at five factors and of them decided that three weighed in favor and two were neutral. Preclusion was deemed an appropriate ruling because the case was already under appeal in Wisconsin’s Court of Appeals, DeGuelle did not present any new evidence, witnesses or a sworn affidavit to refute the expert witness affidavit submitted by SC Johnson, and both sides were treated equally with the expectation that they produce evidence to sufficiently argue their position. The court did not, however, rule on SC Johnson’s actions as they pertain to alleged tax evasion. As Judge Stadtmueller explains in his findings, “the legality of SC Johnson’s actions (and whether those actions did, in fact, occur) is of no importance to the Court’s consideration of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.” The court findings state the acts alleged by Deguelle but note that such facts remain “disputed.”

The case was ultimately decided on the state level in District II of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals when the Court, in Appeal No. 2011AP2427 affirmed an earlier ruling of the Racine County Circuit Court in favor of SC Johnson for defamation related to unsubstantiated tax claims, and breach of a confidentiality agreement.

Wax86 (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Reply 13-JUL-2019
Regards, Spintendo  04:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph goes to great lengths to explain the context surrounding this case, and is very careful in its language in some circumstances. This however, is undone by the second paragraph, which uses phrases such as "the case was ultimately decided" and "related to unsubstantiated tax claims" which belie the known circumstances of the case. Because of this, the proposed section ought not to be approved in whole.
 * These questions were put forward to the Wisconsin WikiProject where no response was received.
 * Thus it is suggested that the COI editor return to the drawing board to fashion a section which gives the facts in a manner which does not impute anything beyond what the varying courts have determined (and importantly, why they made those determinations). This refashioned section ought to be integrated into the main body of text, per WP:CSECTION.

Thanks, I will revise. Wax86 (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed Changes
Hi, I am the archivist and historian for SC Johnson and I acknowledge I have a conflict of interest. On 27, July at 4:42 an edit was made to the brand list in the info box in the upper right of the page. The SC Johnson brand OFF! was changed to breeze! and Brise, the company’s international companion brand to Glade, was removed from the list. I am requesting that the edit in question be reversed as the information presented in the list prior to the edit was more accurate. Thanks! Wax86 (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Reply 31-JUL-2019
Spintendo 17:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed Changes
Hi, I am the archivist and historian for SC Johnson and I acknowledge I have a conflict of interest. I had previously requested an addition to the first paragraph of the controversy section and am sending a new revision that, if accepted, could potentially be added as part of the paragraph already there. (as shown) The requested addition would start after citation 2. I did not make any edits to what was already written. Please let me know if this is an acceptable edit:

A RICO lawsuit by tax whistleblower Mike DeGuelle alleges that since 1997, S. C. Johnson & Son has taken advantage of audit errors and filed fraudulent tax returns, underpaying its taxes by millions of dollars. H. Fisk Johnson ordered an inquiry into the allegations, and told Tax Analysts that he learned "other details of the decisions they (the tax department) made that I didn't like. I didn't like what I heard." On December 15, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Case No. 10-2172, ruled that DeGuelle had alleged a valid claim that the company's discharge of him was part of the tax fraud scheme. The claim was reviewed as Case No. 10-CV-103-JPS in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin with the Court ruling to dismiss the RICO lawsuit on the grounds of preclusion. In the written judgement U.S. District Judge Judge J.P. Stadtmueller explains “In cases such as this, in which the main issues have already been determined, the Court should not spend further judicial resources entertaining the relitigation of such matters.” To determine preclusion, the Court looked at five factors and of them decided that three weighed in favor and two were neutral. Preclusion was deemed an appropriate ruling because the case was already under appeal in Wisconsin’s Court of Appeals, the plaintiff did not present any additional evidence, witnesses or affidavits, and both sides were treated equally with the expectation that they produce evidence to sufficiently argue their position. The court did not rule on SC Johnson’s actions as they pertain to alleged tax evasion. As Judge Stadtmueller explains in his findings, “the legality of SC Johnson’s actions (and whether those actions did, in fact, occur) is of no importance to the Court’s consideration of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.” The Wisconsin Court of Appeals reviewed the case on the state level in Appeal No. 2011AP2427 and affirmed an earlier ruling of the Racine County Circuit Court in favor of SC Johnson for defamation related to Deguelle's claims of tax evasion and breach of a confidentiality agreement because the defendant did not submit any affidavits or witness testimony related to the tax evasion claim.

Wax86 (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Reply 21-AUG-2019

 * 1) Kindly state each specific desired change in the form of a verbatim statement which can be added to the article (if approved) by the reviewer.
 * 2) Exact, verbatim descriptions of any text to be removed should also be described.
 * 3) The exact location where the desired claims are to be placed should be described.
 * 4) Any text which is not to be changed should not be included in the request.
 * 5) Reasons need to be provided for each requested change.
 * An example edit request for how all of this should be done is shown below:


 * Please remove the third sentence from the second paragraph of the Sun section:
 * "The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 25 miles in length."


 * Please add the following claim as the third sentence of the second paragraph of the Sun section:
 * "The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 864,337 miles in length."


 * Using as the reference:


 * Reason for change being made:
 * "The previously given diameter was incorrect."

Regards, Spintendo  22:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Kindly open a new edit request at your earliest convenience when ready to proceed with the verbatim text and the placement locations.

Wax86 (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I put my new request in the same section. I am moving it to a new section for organization purposes.

Proposed Changes
I am the archivist and historian for SC Johnson and and I acknowledge I have a conflict of interest.


 * Please add the following seven sentences after sentence three of the first paragraph of the Controversy section. These sentences would become sentences four through ten of that first paragraph.

"The claim was reviewed as Case No. 10-CV-103-JPS in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin with the Court ruling to dismiss the RICO lawsuit on the grounds of preclusion. In the written judgement U.S. District Judge Judge J.P. Stadtmueller explains “In cases such as this, in which the main issues have already been determined, the Court should not spend further judicial resources entertaining the relitigation of such matters.” To determine preclusion, the Court looked at five factors and of them decided that three weighed in favor and two were neutral. Preclusion was deemed an appropriate ruling because the case was already under appeal in Wisconsin’s Court of Appeals, the plaintiff did not present any additional evidence, witnesses or affidavits, and both sides were treated equally with the expectation that they produce evidence to sufficiently argue their position. The court did not rule on SC Johnson’s actions as they pertain to alleged tax evasion. As Judge Stadtmueller explains in his findings, “the legality of SC Johnson’s actions (and whether those actions did, in fact, occur) is of no importance to the Court’s consideration of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.” The Wisconsin Court of Appeals reviewed the case on the state level in Appeal No. 2011AP2427 and affirmed an earlier ruling of the Racine County Circuit Court in favor of SC Johnson for defamation related to Deguelle's claims of tax evasion and breach of a confidentiality agreement because the defendant did not submit any affidavits or witness testimony related to the tax evasion claim. "

Wax86 (talk) 02:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Reason for change being made: "The paragraph as written does not detail how the lawsuit was decided in the courts. The addition brings the issue up-to-date by providing an overview of the Courts' decisions and why they were made."

Wax86 (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Reply 22-AUG-2019
Regards, Spintendo  18:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) It was stated in an earlier response from me that characterizing the plaintiffs inability to provide a sworn affidavit as a "failure to refute the expert witness affidavit" should not be done, because that imputes a certain level of veracity to the defendant's affidavit and does so using Wikipedia's voice — despite the fact that the judge in the matter specifically stated that the facts remain "disputed" even without the plaintiff's providing of the requested sworn affidavits.
 * 2) In this request, the same language I called attention to has been repeated in the requested prose. That language does not repect the guidelines at WP:NPOV, because it implies that the litigant's case was meritless, when the case was dismissed only because the litigant failed to buttress their initial testimony with additional witness testimony. Because of that, the judge declared that the facts in the case remained "disputed".

proposed changes
I am the archivist and historian for SC Johnson and and I acknowledge I have a conflict of interest.

"The claim was reviewed as Case No. 10-CV-103-JPS in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin with the Court ruling to dismiss the RICO lawsuit on the grounds of preclusion. In the written judgement U.S. District Judge J.P. Stadtmueller explains “In cases such as this, in which the main issues have already been determined, the Court should not spend further judicial resources entertaining the relitigation of such matters.” Though the Court did not rule on SC Johnson’s actions as they pertain to tax evasion, the Judge deemed it appropriate to dismiss the case as it was still under appeal at the state level. As Judge Stadtmueller explains in his findings, “the legality of SC Johnson’s actions (and whether those actions did, in fact, occur) is of no importance to the Court’s consideration of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.” The Wisconsin Court of Appeals reviewed the case on the state level in Appeal No. 2011AP2427 and affirmed an earlier ruling of the Racine County Circuit Court in favor of SC Johnson for defamation related to Deguelle's claims of tax evasion and breach of a confidentiality agreement. The ruling was, in large part, procedural because the defendant was unable to provide sworn affidavits within the time frame prescribed by the Court. "
 * Please add the following six sentences after sentence three of the first paragraph of the Controversy section. These sentences would become sentences four through nine of that first paragraph.


 * Reason for change being made: The paragraph as written does not detail how the lawsuit was decided in the courts. The addition brings the issue up-to-date by providing a brief overview of the Courts' decisions and why they were made.

Wax86 (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Reply 16-OCT-2019

 * The description of the case as added to by the additional modified prose is felt to be as WP:BALANCED as possible. Spintendo  00:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

proposed changes
I am the archivist and historian for SC Johnson and I acknowledge I have a conflict of interest.

In the infobox at the top Drackett is listed as SC Johnson's predecessor. This information is incorrect and I ask that it be removed from the infobox. SC Johnson acquired Drackett in late 1992 but prior to that they were always separate companies. SC Johnson was founded in 1886 and has no predecessor.

Wax86 (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Reply 06-DEC-2019
Regards, Spintendo  18:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The predecessor information was being imported from the SC Johnson Wikidata page, as there is not a predecessor parameter that can be entered into directly from the Wikipedia article. That parameter as it existed in the Wikidata page (which itself, was unreferenced) has now been deleted.