Talk:Gen Re

financial WMDs
General Re is where Buffett first encountered all the insecurities that were behind the mortgage meltdown and the general financial crisis of 2007-8-9-??? I don't have time to incorporate it, but see this bbc story which reports Buffett's sage warnings of the dangers of the new derivatives. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2817995.stm Mulp (talk) 03:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

General Re → Gen Re – Article to be renamed from "General Re" to "Gen Re" so as to correctly state the company's current global name, taken in 2003 as brand name. Gen Re encompasses General Re Corporation (the US holding company), General Reinsurance Corporation (the US reinsurance company), General Reinsurance AG (the German reinsurance company) and their subsidiaries, cf. also today's article content update. General Re (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Financial security and historical information
With regard to the two sections edited on July 29, 2014, and the edits revoked the same day:

Financial security (aka "claims paying ability"), arguably the single most important quality of a company in the (re)insurance business, cannot be alleged by a (re)insurer about itself, but is assessed and then publicized (or disclosed against a fee) by professional rating agencies. The result of such process is precisely what I have added here, so, in my view, no advertising or inappropriate external links insofar, but unbiased and important information which I would suggest to reinstate.

Historical information: From a formal point, two subsection headings were added to the History section, to better balance the appearance against the AIG Securities Fraud subsection which had been added by User:Trident13 in 2012 with a subsection header of its own. More importantly, two content items were added, viz. some details from earlier corporate history that had not been widely known before, and the final and full closure of the a.m. AIG matter. The former item might perhaps be questioned for its relevance but was thought of historic interest for some readers, while the latter is definitely an important legal and regulatory result, omitting which in this context would be misleading. As no unaffiliated Wikipedian had mentioned it in over a year, I felt I had to do it myself. What's more, both content amendments were correctly substantiated with reputable independent external links. So again, in my view, no advertising or inappropriate external links, but serious and neutral information which should be reinstated.

If however the links should be formally organized in a different way, I'd be grateful for guidance. General Re (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gen Re. 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/20150924021454/http://www.genre.com/aboutus/press-releases/cologne-re-becomes-general-reinsurance-ag.html to http://www.genre.com/aboutus/press-releases/cologne-re-becomes-general-reinsurance-ag.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002023024/http://www.reactionsnet.com/Article.aspx?StoryID=713911 to http://www.reactionsnet.com/Article.aspx?StoryID=713911

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) 09:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Edits reverted
As you have reverted my on the grounds of Paid/WP:COI, kindly accept that I am fully aware of this potential issue and have done my best regarding transparency, WP:NPOV and WP:V, as I am confident you will do after checking my edits contentwise: I trust you will agree these changes are in the best encyclopedic interest of accuracy and timeliness and furthermore have been made in a fully transparent way, so do not constitute a WP:COI; hence I would politely request that they be reinstated. Thanks, --General Re (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Here, the corporate foundation year in the infobox (stated wrongly as it stood) was corrected/differentiated as detailed later in the History section; the enumeration of office locations was updated with updated source; another financial strength rating (=Moody's) was added, the basic relevance of such ratings had been clarified in a previous section of this talk page; and several references were merely changed from vertical to horizontal format without altering content.
 * A dead external URL (=CasActSoc) was updated; a " " template (=1923 namechange) was replaced by reference to a book in my possession; another external citation (=1945 merger) was added; another "  " template (=1980 foundation and NYSE listing of holding company) was replaced by reference to the same book source.
 * New content with reference, deemed relevant, neutral and hence acceptable.
 * Three dated articles that are no longer accessible online (=Reactions magazine) were replaced by two recent, available ones.
 * , thank you for responding here. As my edit summary noted, it is best practice for paid editors to use the Template:request edit on the talk page rather than making more than minor edits themselves. I have restored some of these proposed changes, but not all. For example, you say here that content about anniversaries is "deemed relevant" - by whom? As a paid editor, that should not be your determination, you should allow neutral editors to decide. Personally, I do not think it is encyclopedic content. You will also note that I have removed some unsourced "corporate speak" such as "delivers solutions in all segments of the industry". Melcous (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)