Talk:Johnson & Johnson

Archives (Index)

2012 2013 2016 2017 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Updating the Corporate Governance Section

Current Corporate governance section:

As of December 2024, the members of the board of directors of Johnson & Johnson are Joaquin Duato, Darius Adamczyk, Mary C. Beckerle, Jennifer A. Doudna, Marillyn A. Hewson, Paula A. Johnson, Hubert Joly, Mark B. McClellan, Anne M. Mulcahy, Mark A. Weinberger, Nadja Y. West, and Eugene A. Woods.

As of December 2024, the members of the executive committee of Johnson & Johnson are Joaquin Duato, Vanessa Broadhurst, Liz Forminard, Kristen Mulholland, Tim Schmid, John C. Reed, James Swanson, Jennifer Taubert, Kathy E. Wengel, and Joseph J. Wolk.

Joaquin Duato is chairman and chief executive officer.

Updated Corporate governance section:

As of January 2026, the members of the board of directors of Johnson & Johnson are Joaquin Duato, Mary C. Beckerle, Jennifer A. Doudna, Marillyn A. Hewson, Paula A. Johnson, Hubert Joly, Mark B. McClellan, John G. Morikis, Daniel E. Pinto, Mark A. Weinberger, Nadja Y. West, and Eugene A. Woods.

As of January 2026, the members of the executive committee of Johnson & Johnson are Joaquin Duato, Vanessa Broadhurst, Kristen Mulholland, Liz Forminard, John C. Reed, Tim Schmid, James Swanson, Jennifer Taubert, Kathy E. Wengel, and Joseph J. Wolk.

Joaquin Duato is chairman and chief executive officer.

Hi @Grand'mere Eugene, I just noticed a quick update needed in this section. The citations are still accurate. Chefmikesf (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

May 2026

Hi @Grand'mere Eugene, I fixed the red links in the Infobox by adding all subsidiaries with Wikipedia articles, and adjusted the employee count to match the rest of the fields for full-time employees per WP:COIU #4. A few other sections are in violation of Wikipedia policy, so I wanted to run my thoughts by you.

1. The Tree chart at the end of the history section is not a history of the acquisitions; it’s a rough copy/paste of a SEC document. Also, there are no secondary sources for the entire section. I suggest removing it for lack of a source.

2. The pricing section was added by a single-use account promoting the report, citing the content. The section violates WP:Primary by only using the report as a source, on top of the fact that the single sentence doesn’t need its own section. I suggest removing it for both reasons.

Let me know your thoughts!--Chefmikesf (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Good catches. Both requests completed. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Grand'mere Eugene!--Chefmikesf (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

References

Lead paragraph policy discussion and verifiability concerns

The lead paragraph violates WP:LEAD. It is no longer an introduction to this article or a summation of the article, per MOS:INTRO. Prior to May 22, 2026, the lead was published by consensus of User:Grand'mere Eugene, User:Indefensible, and myself. user:Pats322 posted his initial edits on May 23, 2026. user:Zoldyick reverted the policy-violating lead paragraph updates on May 25, 2026. On May 26, 2026, user:Pats322 republished the content without discussing it on the talk page. The action violates WP:EDITCON, user:Zoldyick's reversion established that there was no consensus, requiring a talk page discussion.

I’m also raising a WP:Verifiability concern. The updated lead and business segment sections do not accurately inform the reader, according to the cited source. For example, the company organizes its operations into business segments rather than business divisions. There are multiple other secondary sources that corroborate the company’s business structure. On Wikipedia, it is a well-known policy that content is expected to be supported by verifiable, reliable secondary sources. Reinstatement of the consensus-approved version should be considered, as it met the policies and guidelines.—Chefmikesf (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I have partially restored the old lead, moved some of the new information down to the business segments section, and removed some other information that seems redundant and is covered in the article.

Does anyone know where Johnson & Johnson Innovation (JJI) belongs? Are they part of the Innovative Medicine business unit or separate?

- Indefensible (talk) 01:32, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Indefensible, that's a good call out on the JJI paragraph. I found over a dozen sources to update this paragraph and address your question. I will post an updated version in the near future to make the section more accurate.

One question for you regarding the prose list products: What is the value of the new information you moved to the business segments section if we have an entire List article with those products?--Chefmikesf (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I am not a huge fan of it either but I kept that material as a compromise rather than just straight reverting and possibly getting into an edit war. The main difference is the revenue breakdown for each product which the list page does not have. - Indefensible (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2026 (UTC)