Talk:International Flavors & Fragrances

Fair use rationale for Image:Iff logo.gif

Image:Iff logo.gif 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) 23:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 06:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Popcorn Lung

To 63.250.134.98, please stop blanking this section without explanation. If you think there is a legitimate reason to not include this, then please give your justification here. Wjousts (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Green rankings

It would be better to replace the anecdotal lines with an internationally-recognised comparison. The only relevant line is probably the mention of CDP, which could be updated and integrated with at least one of the various ESG ratings.

Instead of mentioning some waste treatment and power plants opened here and there, we should mention some international ranking or study of the overall operations and how they compare to competitors, otherwise it's just greenwashing. --Nemo 05:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Financial Results

I have a question / problem with how financial results are stated. It probably applies throughout Wikipedia, and part of the problem might relate to the difference between UK and US English formatting of numbers. Let me give an example:

From the article: "Revenue Increase$5,140,084 Billion (2019[1])"

That, if read with a US interpretation, would mean that the total revenue is $5,140,084,000,000,000. I'm sure that is not what is meant. In US writing, the total revenue is either (and other writeups are possible, I'll just mention two):

  * $5,140,084,000
  * $5.140084 Billion (US billion and notation)
  * $0,00514084 Billion (UK billion and notation?)

There are three points of confusion:

  * The thousands separator in the US is the ",", and the decimal point is ".", in the UK, it is the opposite
  * In the US, a billion is 1,000,000,000, in the UK, a billion is 1,000,000,000,000
  * The use of a word like "billion" (or "million" in other cases) when it is incorrect (the earnings are not "$5,140,084 Billion", but one of the items listed in the two bullet points in the previous section (i.e., $5,140,084,000 or $5.140084 Billion -- but even that second is not correct in terms of the UK Billion (in UK billion it would (presumably be $0,00514084 Billion

I presume there is a policy on Wikipedia for reporting numbers like this -- can you point me to it? But, in any case, I can't believe the reporting in the article conforms to that policy -- does it? Rhkramer (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Environmental Record is very biased sounding

This entire section is all positives, and takes up a large chunk of the article for what it is. I came to this page because I'd recently heard about them being sued by residents around their plants for their factories producing a lot of... odor, to say the least. They have negatives in their history with the environment, like this lawsuit. It seems directly copy pasted from some marketing material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.192.115.139 (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)