Talk:Lloyd's of London/Archives/2014

Inga Beale
Hi all,

I've spoken with several of you recently and had the pleasure to work with a few of you as well. I work for PR agency Weber Shandwick UK on behalf of Lloyd's of London, and I'm interested in engaging with the Wikipedia community to improve some of the company's articles, and as always, will do this in an open, transparent matter. Following Wikipedia's guidelines for PR professionals as well as my company's own rules for ethical Wikipedia engagement, I will not be creating any articles or doing any direct edits myself, but will rather engage with Wikipedia editors suggesting edits where I think some might be helpful.

One area of improvement that I think would be quite useful would be a Wikipedia page for the Lloyd's of London CEO, Inga Beale. Inga is an industry veteran of 30 years and the first female CEO of Lloyd's in 325 years. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/insurance/10520441/Lloyds-of-London-appoints-Inga-Beale-as-first-female-chief-executive-in-325-years.html I've submitted a request for an article for creation here:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Business_and_economics/People_in_business#B

There's a large amount of corroborating third party content confirming Ms Beale's biography and career, and as CEO of Lloyd's, I think she certainly is qualified as a notable person under Wikipedia guidelines.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/banking/article3950569.ece http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7b2265d0-68ac-11e3-bb3e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2wtLBYu9A http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20131229/NEWS04/312299986?tags=%7C76%7C78%7C306 http://news.sky.com/story/1183103/inga-beale-becomes-lloyds-first-female-ceo

Please do not hesitate to get in touch via my Talk page if I can be of any help.

Thanks, Bennett --Btgolder (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So she is the first woman "in 325 year". To begin with, let's make that "first ever", because LoL is not much older. Unless one wants to state that some 325+ year ago there indeed was another female CEO. So far for the numbers. Are we talking about insurance?
 * Then, having seen the headers of The Times and The Daily Telegraph linked here, the major reach addition in notability seems to be that the CEO is a woman, and a (true) first one ever at that.
 * I guess that gives notability, of sorts, to LoL. How being a woman would make noteworthy Ms Beale, I do not see. Unless she only became a woman after occupying the seat. -DePiep (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Aaargh. Headslap! Self-trouting! How could I not think of this: you are trying to convey that she was seated because she is a woman? In that case, you are in the perfect place to verify & publish that. -DePiep (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi DePiep, Yes, to clear up your comments, she is the first ever female CEO of Lloyd's of London (the insurance market), which I only point out because it was in the headlines of the third party content I've posted. Inga Beale passes the notability threshold, I think, because she is a 30-year industry veteran and the CEO of Lloyd's of London, a well-known insurance institution. She was certainly not hired only because she is a female, but her being female was a news hook that many news sources used when covering her hiring by Lloyd's. For additional articles about Inga Beale (and as further evidence of her notability, see e.g. a Google search for her name that results in many pages of relevant results). Happy to have a chat on my Talk page if you would like! As I'm conflicted by my association with Lloyd's, it would be unethical for me to create a new article myself, which is why I've chosen to engage via the Talk page to see if I can provide any help or if there was appetite for the creation of a new article for Inga Beale. If there's a better way for me to do this, happy to do that as well. Many thanks! Bennett --Btgolder (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. The key is in "certainly not hired only because she is a female". "not only" -- that is a confirmation right? So LoL is stating that her being a woman was one of the reasons to hire her. Glad LoL is honest about this. Could you make that being published? -DePiep (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi DePiep, I'm not a Lloyd's spokesperson and unable to speak on the company's behalf, but I am sure Lloyd's would agree with me that Inga Beale was hired because of her qualifications and her gender has nothing to do with her hiring - this is a news hook that many third party sources used in reporting her. If anybody is genuinely interested in creating a page for the new CEO of Lloyd's, do please feel free to get in touch. Thanks, Bennett --Btgolder (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, stepping out already? Nothing more to say about "Inga" (Ms. Beale)? "I'm not" contradicts your opening statement here ( vs ; within 30 hrs). And next time just leave out your PR reflex, asking for someone "genuinely interested". I am genuinely interested, as I showed by actually reading what you wrote. If you don't like being read critically & being critically yourself, then an encyclopedia is not your place to hang out.
 * What you did write is interesting and worrying. It shows the problem with this payed advocacy (open or not). First there are the elusions and allusions injected in the public domain ✅ (followed by a self serving "others wrote" quote ✅). Then when asked the most primitive questions (as I did here, as a journalist should have done, as an investigator does), nothing substantial is replied ✅. Even a gaffe is made without acknowledging ✅ (bonus points). The conversation left with an "I'm not ..." denial ✅, factually a straight lie even ✅ (bonus points). One can also change topic to the messager ✅, bonus points for introducing integrity doubts ✅.


 * I expect later on such articles will be created, with or without your declared interest. If you and Weber Shandwick can turn & twist here in the open, why would it stop when at the office door? Here are some details to chew on. I note these to improve you profession, not to provide red herrings. "Inge" is a familiar naming. But we are not talking friends or 3rd person resumes here (there is a difference between writing an encyclopedia and what you do). A "veteran" by definition is past tense. Is the CEO of LoL a retirement position?
 * By the way, could you give links to webpages you and your company created or shaped wrt this topic? What was send to the papers, some you mentioned as a source?


 * And here are some real topics, that could earn her a Wikipage. 'Relevance' is the keyword. As you said, it is your company's task to promote Ms. Beale. So you are in the right position to find the answers, and push them in the open!
 * Question 1: Find out and publish how and why her gender was relevant.
 * Question 2: What did she do in the "industry" in the asbestos years? Someone advancing the LoL interests must have made relevant achievements in those years. Of course, actions may not be disclosed (quite likely in that case, seen from LoL's interests). But at least they should be mentioned. Whatever she did, it must be of relevance given her current position. (If she was not involved in such LoL-shaping topics at all, that could be interesting too, and equally relevant for this site).
 * Question 3: In her 30 years in the industry, what did she do or not do regarding the financial crisis? What was her work in the system for the system that created the crisis in the first place? What did she do after September 2008? Which were her actions and achievements that made her a good candidate (no doubt actions valued high in the recent vetting process, together with her gender)? Of course she could have been working "elsewhere" at that moment of 10 years. In that case, no relevance claim can be made.
 * Question 4: No coincidence? 325 years ago, another QE reigned. Did this cause you writing "first woman since 325 years"?
 * In general, these are items of relevance. If they do not exist, or they cannot be published, there goes the point of article relevance too.
 * See, I am genuinely interested. This is an encyclopedia. -DePiep (talk) 08:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Berkshire Hathaway assumption of historical liabilities
What - no mention of Buffett & Co's bailout of Lloyd's? That's almost as gaping a hole as the one that Berkshire Hathaway closed for Lloyd's owners ('names' et. al.). Patfla (talk) 03:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * BH idn't bailout Lloyd's, per se. I believe the aquisition of which you speak may be covered under Equitas. --Ana Nim (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think I implied that. Equitas paid BH $8 bil to assume Lloyd's (Equitas') 1995-and-before APH liabilities.  Those being what most threatened the very survival of Lloyd's (since previous attempts to address the problem - such as creating Equitas in the first place - had not succeeded in fully addressing the problem).  The actuarial and accounting details of why Buffett believes the investment makes sense (for BH) can be found in the transcript of one of the yrly BH talks (which can be quite technical).  (don't remember what yr).  Provided you're so inclined and equipped makes for very interesting reading. Patfla (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources for article expansion
The History of Lloyd's and of Marine Insurance in Great Britain seems unused so far. It's dated, no doubt, but seems like it should be a good place to look for early and 19th c. history. — Llywelyn II   13:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)