Talk:Justin King (businessman)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Justin King (businessman) article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Opinions, facts, neutrality

The only thing that could be described as "opinionated" is the label "Justin Time" which could be taken as heralding the arrival of Sainsbury's saviour. I work for Sainsbury's and do not see this as the case - I was merely reporting what has been written in commentary. I have therefore removed this reference.

All other statements are factual - please indicate if you think anything else is opinionated.

  • Is seen as Sainsbury's last chance to win back market share as independent company - if it fails several companies stalking the group are rumoured to be willing to buy it - and the family likely to sell its large shareholding.
  • Employment history accurate.
  • Has made major decisions - I have indicated neither approval or dissent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by H1523702 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 16 May 2004
I would agree with this. What's written here is neutrally presented. Meelar 20:31, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

This should be a disambiguation page. There's an acoustic guitar genius by the name of Justin King who deserves his own page as well.

See video

Adraeus 07:10, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Agreed. See this as well [1] Liface 02:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Christmas bonus

Yes "Justin King instigated the removal of the Colleague Christmas Bonus award." was changed to "Justin King authorised the removal of the Colleague Christmas Bonus award", however his exact role is not referenced. It will have been a board decision and for all we know King argued against it - I think it unlikely, but that's the point we don't know.

I removed the "management issues" reference as it's blatant POV: "In an internal memo, Justin King, Sainsbury’s new Chief Executive, said that “many colleagues will be disappointed” before trotting out the usual bumph about the firm needing to "focus all our investment behind serving customers better and driving sales"" is not a fair analysis. Also "As one member of staff quoted by the Daily Mail newspaper said: “This Justin King - he's rubbish. He's demoralised the whole staff and he's creating chaos in the store.”" is rediculous - of the thousands of store colleagues all a journalist would have to do it keep asking until they get the answer they want! Mark83 13:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough instigated / authorised - You are aware that he will as CEO, without a shadow of doubt, had the final say on this issue. If you do a Google search for "Sainbury christmas bonus" it will become immediately clear just how big of a contentious issue that this was. Especially when factoring in the bonus payments to Sir Peter Davis and the huge share awards made to Justin king in the same year. A fair and balanced wikipedia article highlights both the positive and negative aspects. The average reader is all too well aware that citations listed on Wiki are only a guide because journalists will tend to put spin on articles weather they are writing for the BBC or anyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.248.229 (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Also " and for all we know King argued against it - I think it unlikely, but that's the point we don't know."
Would you agree or disagree that this statement is equally applicable to all of the " Early decisions " Listed in the article.
Fair and balanced ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.248.229 (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, all uncited decisions removed. The difference is I know I can get references for most of those, you still have not one to attribute the bonus decision to King. I would have no problem with you adding it to the Sainsbury's article, because as you said it was contentious. However you are trying to link it directly to King with no evidence whatsoever.
I've re-removed the management issues reference. If you are so interested in fair and balanced references go and find an article with unbalanced gushing praise to balance up this uniformed POV "analysis". The BBC reference is fine, it at least provides a fair assessment and a good sample of critcism. It does not however say the bonus decision was King's. Mark83 15:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
" However you are trying to link it directly to King with no evidence whatsoever. "
I have provided links. I think it's fair to say that you are nitpicking. Do you understand the responsibilities of being a CEO for a company. ? Do you think for one minute that such a media sensitive issue would have passed under Justin's nose without his final authorisation ? Your last editing exhibits childish behaviour. I do not expect references to early decisions to be removed. The responsibilities of a Chief Executive Officer of a company constantly in the media spotlight are clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.249.189 (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
NO! Are you unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy on biographies? "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia." (WP:LIVING). You have not provided a reference saying it was his decision or he acquiesed - the BBC reference does not say that and the Management Issues reference does not satisfy the criteria for verifiability "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." -- it is blatant POV and they didn't even manage to produce an article without a spelling mistake!
Finally the bonus meant very little to some and quite a lot to others, i.e. part time vs. full time staff and in that sense your analysis "would have to spend an additional £2000 over the Christmas trading period in order to recoup the bonus" is incomplete/nonsense.
Also you do not know at what level the decision was taken and what board members were for/against it. You are assuming King's role in this decision and that is what is entirely unacceptable. You're very welcome to write about the bonus on the Sainsbury's article - talk about the controversy etc. But you are adding unsourced/speculative material here and it is not acceptable. Mark83 19:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Are you familiar with common sense ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.249.15 (talk) 07:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I am, and of presenting a valid argument. You seem confused by both. You have not explained how your edits do comply with Wikipedia policy. Mark83 09:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3O response

Per WP:V, when an unreferenced statement is challenged, the provision of a source is normally the responsibility of the parties who wish the statement to remain. That applies to any reasonable challenge, and this is not an unreasonable challenge, in my opinion. I can appreciate the point that the CEO is likely (in most companies) to have the final say, but I can also appreciate that this is likely to have been a board decision. I am not going to make a judgment about who is right with regard to the statement's content, but the policy for source disputes applies here. It would solve your dispute if the anonymous editor agrees to either: (a) have the statement kept in a revised form that does not try to pin the decision on a particular person, regardless of whether they might have been ultimately responsible, or (b) provide a citation. Adrian M. H. 13:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

In the case of (a) would you not agree that (as I suggested earlier) this should be discussed at the main Sainsbury's article? - The anon. user is entirely right that this was contentious, and given that it was a board decision, I believe that is where the information belongs. Mark83 13:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
And thank you for your time. Mark83 13:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Academic now that the issue has been addressed with the preferred outcome, but yes, it would probably have been better in the parent article had it been modified in that way. Glad to see that this is sorted. Adrian M. H. 14:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Reworded and additional citation added. Hope this helps to clarify the point i am making. There is nothing factually incorrect here. There is much info on the internet in regard to this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.250.140 (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That satisfies me. That seemed awfully easy, I fail to see how you couldn't have provided that at the start and saved us both (and Andrian M. H.) an awful lot of time! Mark83 13:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome i just found it. Are you going to contact Julia Finch ( Guardian Business ) and ask her for a citation ? After all it might be just her POV ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.250.140 (talk) 13:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No. The difference between The Guardian and your management issues citation is the former is a respectable publication whose article is a fair analysis. The latter was blatant anti-King POV, and badly written at that! I have followed WP policies through this entire issue. You would do well to read over them so you don't waste more people's time. Mark83 13:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ha Ha Ha. In your opinion. I have been keeping an eye on a number of Business Journalists in the " respectables " for some time as i am a private investor. They have to churn out a given number of articles every week no matter what. There are a number of companies that i follow that i know virtually inside out. I can assure that often they don't have a clue about the company that they are writing about. For example pick any journo in any "respectable" and do a search on their historic articles. You will find that they purport to be expertly knowledgeable about virtually every company and sector of the business world. This is simply not possible. Open your eyes. Question everything, including what you view as gospel in the "respectables". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.194.118 (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying the Guardian article is not reliable?? I'm only joking. I know what you're saying, e.g. I know a lot about BAE Systems having followed the company closely for several years, and even "respected" journalists make glaring errors in their coverage of it. However I feel a bit annoyed being given lessons about what sources to use from someone who swallowed that complete trash of a "management issues" article as fact!! Mark83 17:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_freak —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.194.118 (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Not rising to it mate. Mark83 02:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_freak —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.66.149 (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Philip Hampton and Justin King.JPG

Image:Philip Hampton and Justin King.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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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) 16:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)