Talk:New York Life Insurance Company/Archive 2

Proposing new material re: asset management
Hi again, I'm back with more suggestions for the Operations section. This time, I'm looking to add some information about New York Life's asset management business, since there's nothing about this in the current article. Specifically, I'm looking to add a short summary of its asset management operations, including:
 * NYL's asset management business serves clients worldwide, including both institutions and individuals
 * The company's asset management arm ranks No. 26 by total worldwide institutional assets under management
 * The company manages money through independent investment boutiques

My proposed draft below includes a list of NYL's investment boutiques written in paragraph form. If editors feel that if it makes more sense to include the boutiques as a bulleted list, that would be absolutely fine with me.

As I've noted before I do have a financial COI, as I'm here on behalf of NYL as part of my work at Beutler Ink and will therefore not make any edits to the live article. It's my hope that an uninvolved editor (or editors) can review my proposed updates and make edits as appropriate. Would you be willing to take a look at these suggested additions, too? Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Given your recent edit to the article and other constructive edits in the past, I'm wondering if you would be interested in reviewing this request? Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 21:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pinging me, starting to take a look at this now. Happy to provide advice when I have some time.Cmargins414 (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Cmargins414! Let me know if you have any feedback or questions when you're able to take a look. If you're not able to get to this soon, no worries and I can reach out to others folks too. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 16:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks OK except for a few things. Ausbil is misspelled, and few of the subscription/registration sites are marked as such in the citations. Also, I think bullets work better in this particular case - there are too many items for straight prose. If you make those changes I'll add the info for you. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  03:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing this request! Based on your feedback, I fixed the Ausbil typo (thanks for catching that!), marked which references require a subscription/registration and included quotations from the articles within the citations, and turned the prose into a bulleted list as you suggested. I also removed two of the sources, which were behind paywalls, that were extra support for included details but not strictly needed. Thanks for your help and feedback so far. Let me know if you have any other questions or edits. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 11:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ I also restored the links you had in the earlier version. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  23:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for reviewing this request and making the edits! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 16:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposing new material re: New York Life Foundation
Hi again, I'm back with a proposal to add a new section for Corporate responsibility. For this material, I want to keep this simple as to avoid it from becoming promotional. However, New York Life's foundation and its work in the areas of childhood bereavement and issues regarding the African-American community have appeared in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Crain's and Philanthropy News Digest, among others and I believe it is noteworthy to include in this article. My draft below briefly summarizes the New York Life Foundation's focus on these areas.

As I've noted before I do have a financial COI, as I'm here on behalf of NYL as part of my work at Beutler Ink and will therefore not make any edits to the live article. It's my hope that an uninvolved editor (or editors) can review my proposed updates and make edits as appropriate. Would one of you be willing to take a look at these suggested additions, too? Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have read through this and was wondering if you have example on other similar pages that would have a similar section. I looked at several other companies and none had a section like this. Even entities like WWE and Major League Baseball that make this sort of work a huge focal point of the entity do not have them. Do you have examples of others that do? I do not personally see it as encyclopedia worthy of an inclusion but if you have examples where WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I am not opposed to it. -  Galatz Talk  14:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course! It's not ubiquitous across company articles but there are a lot that have some kind of charity / foundation / corporate responsibility section. Here's a few (I tried to pick a variety I've come across, but as you can see, it's lunchtime and clearly food is on my mind): Burger King (GA); UBS (GA); Bank of America; Clorox; McDonald's; Hormel; and Tom Hortons. More directly comparable to NYL, Aflac has a section on its corporate charitable efforts. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI)  17:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I added it but changed the header to Charitable efforts since I thought it was more logical. -  Galatz Talk  17:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your review, and that title sounds fine to me! Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 18:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies, Galatz, was just looking back at the article and realized there's a citation formatting issue. I'd shown the full citation for "ref name=Swarns16" in the draft above, so it was easier to review, but it can be replaced with just the short version in that section since the full citation is previously used in the article. That should resolve the error. Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI)  18:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Galatz, for making that formatting fix. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 12:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Re-offering some material for History
Hi again, I'm back with a proposal for editors to reconsider some proposed content for the History section. There's a little background needed here. I proposed updates to History in January. The edit request was answered, but there were several details the reviewing editor chose not to include. For the most part, I'm very appreciative and comfortable with the content added to the article, but there are a few omissions from my draft that I feel removed important context or noteworthy content, which I would ask other editors to review and consider.

1. Sentence re: life insurance for slaves

Prior to my History section proposal in January, the article included the following unreferenced sentence:
 * "As with other early insurance companies in the U.S., in its early years (1846–1848), at the behest of its Southern agents, the company insured the lives of slaves for their owners"

My proposal kept the sentence exactly, but I added this story from The New York Times (already cited in the article as ) as a reference. The reviewing editor edited the sentence to read:
 * In its early years (1846–1848) the company insured the lives of slaves for their owners.

In addition to confirming the years in which the company provided these policies, The New York Times story includes the context to show that this was not a situation unique to New York Life. Right now, the History lacks that context and a reader could be forgiven for thinking that NYL was the only company that insured slaves' lives.

Can editors consider rephrasing this sentence as the way it was originally proposed? Ie. adding back the details in green:
 * As with other early insurance companies in the U.S., in its early years (1846–1848), at the behest of its Southern agents, the company insured the lives of slaves for their owners.

2. Including mention of NY Life history books' discussion of slave insurance

Also in my draft, I'd offered a sentence noting that the company had included information about the slave life insurance policies in its own history books. I wanted to revisit this to see if there's any way to incorporate a mention that editors might be more comfortable with?

Here's what I'd originally proposed:
 * The company has been open about the sales and these details have been included in books by the company as far back as 1895, including its Semi-Centennial History of the New-York Life Insurance Company.

Perhaps a more simple mention such as the following might work:
 * Details about these policies are included the company's books Semi-Centennial History of the New-York Life Insurance Company from 1895 and History of the New York Life Insurance Company, 1895-1905 from 1906.

What do editors think?

3. First company to insure people with disabilities

Finally, in my original request I'd included a sentence about NYL being the first company to insure people with disabilities, which the reviewing editor declined to include, on the basis that the sourcing wasn't very strong. I feel this is an noteworthy detail for an insurance company, so I ask other editors to consider it for inclusion. Since I originally proposed it, I've found another source to help support the detail:


 * In 1896, New York Life became the first company to insure people with disabilities.

As I've noted before I do have a financial COI, as I'm here on behalf of NYL as part of my work at Beutler Ink and will therefore not make any edits to the live article. It's my hope that an uninvolved editor (or editors) can review my proposed updates and make edits as appropriate. Again, I'm pinging others who have recently reviewed requests. Would one of you be willing to take a look at these suggested additions, too? Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 16:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I made some changes, but not all. I'm not seeing substantiation for the statement that the policies were added at the request of the southern agents - that's bordering on WP:OR. I named the other companies listed in the NY Times article, instead of just generically saying "other early insurance companies".  I don't think the fact that the company mentioned the slavery in their books is necessary; nothing is claiming that they were trying to hide this fact, so no rebuttal necessary.  I added the info about being the first to insure handicapped people, but there was other meat there too - first to insure dangerous occupations, and first to insure women for the same price as men, including Susan B. Anthony. You buried the lede! Also, I pulled out the nexus source that I can't access - it was unnecessary WP:OVERCITE anyway.TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  00:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, TimTempleton. I appreciate the careful considered review and the changes that you made, including the addition re: first to insure women for the same price as men. I'm face-palming myself for not asking for that in the first place, I must have been trying to limit to what I felt was the most clear and noteworthy addition from the source. Anyway, I understand your other points and consider this request complete. Thanks again. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 19:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposing new material on ratings and rankings
Hi again, I have drafted a new section to include a few of New York Life Insurance Company's most high profile ratings and rankings. My draft below briefly summarizes New York Life's Fortune and Forbes rankings, in addition to recognition for company culture. I kept this section short, aiming to provide a brief summary of recent recognition without being promotional. While the Fortune and Forbes rankings and recognition don't have secondary sourcing, these are pieces of recognition that are typically included for companies, so I wanted to offer them for editors to consider including.

As I've noted before I do have a financial COI, as I'm here on behalf of NYL as part of my work at Beutler Ink and will therefore not make any edits to the live article. It's my hope that an uninvolved editor (or editors) can review my proposed updates and make edits as appropriate. Would one of you be willing to take a look at these suggested additions, too? Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Checking in to see if one you is willing to take a look at these suggested additions? If not, or you are too busy with other things, I can certainly look elsewhere. I wanted to give you an opportunity since you all have replied to previous requests of mine. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 19:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I added just the first three (Fortune and Forbes). I'm seeing lesser known subjective (i.e. not revenue, headcount or other objective metric) ratings and rankings getting deleted by deletionists, so I just picked the most noteworthy ones. I also fixed the Fortune500 ref tag code since the source was already there. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  05:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the review and making the update, TimTempleton, much appreciated! I understand if you prefer to keep the ratings included just to those that are most well known. (Also, sorry about the delay to get back to you!) 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 18:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to move buildings to See also
Hi again, I am closing in on the end of my proposed updates for this article. Before I offer a cleaned up article introduction, I would like to see how editors feel about removing the as-yet-unsourced New York Life Insurance buildings subsection of Operations. Because this list is completely unsourced and a bare list with no context, it feels out of place in the middle of the article. I wonder if it makes sense to move the list of buildings with their own Wikipedia pages to a See also section, and delete the rest?

As I've noted before I do have a financial COI, as I'm here on behalf of NYL as part of my work at Beutler Ink and will therefore not make any edits to the live article. It's my hope that an uninvolved editor (or editors) can review my proposed updates and make edits as appropriate.

Would one of you be willing to consider moving notable buildings to a See also section? Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I dont like the idea of all of them in a see also section, however if you want to create a navbox for New York Life, with links to the buildings and other relevant info that you can see at Category:New York Life Insurance Company I would be happy to add it to all the pages -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  01:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A navbox is great idea, Galatz! Happy to put one of those together and share a note back here when it's ready. I'll do some looking around to make sure that I capture all relevant pages. For the buildings, any other thoughts on how we might appropriately organize the list within the article body if it's not ideal to move to See also? Listing under Operations doesn't quite seem like the right fit to me; perhaps it would work as a standalone section or subsection under History? Curious for your thoughts! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 01:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * IMO they don't need to be in the article itself. Per WP:SEEALSO the navbox would replace the need for it in see also -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  03:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Aha, thanks for clarifying that, Galatz. I've put together a draft navbox in my user space here: User:16912_Rhiannon/Template:New_York_Life_Insurance_Company
 * Would you be willing to review and move it live if it looks ok? Let me know if anything else should be included here. I focused just on the buildings and people for now to keep it simple, thinking that the template can be added to by others later if needed. Let me know what you think. Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 18:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Since all the buildings had basically the same name with cities, I condensed it down to just show the city names to make it cleaner. Being as the litigation case was the only one that wasn't included I added that as well. For now I have also hid the categories since its still in your user space. Thoughts? -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  18:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Those changes look good to me. Makes sense re: buildings to show the location only to keep it cleaner and easier to read. No questions here, Galatz, and happy for you to move live if you're willing. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have moved it live and added it to the articles included in the navbox -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  19:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much, Galatz! The navbox looks great. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 17:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposing update to introduction
Hi again! Thanks to everyone for reviewing my previous requests. Now that the bulk of this entry has been addressed, I'd like to suggest a simple refresh of the introduction to provide up-to-date details and a broad overview of the company based on the information found within the body. Here are the changes I'm suggesting in my draft:
 * Deleted the abbreviation "NYLIC", as this is not used throughout the article
 * Replaced "third-largest life insurance company in the United States" with "largest mutual life-insurance company in the United States", along with a citation to The Plain Dealer to verify the claim
 * Updated the Fortune 500 ranking
 * Replaced sentences on New York Life's assets under management, ratings by Standard & Poor's, AM Best, Moody's, and Fitch, and other New York Life affiliates with details that offer a brief overview of the company's business operations

As I've noted before I do have a financial COI, as I'm here on behalf of NYL as part of my work at Beutler Ink and will therefore not make any edits to the live article. It's my hope that an uninvolved editor (or editors) can review my proposed updates and make edits as appropriate.

Would one of you be able to take a look at this final request? Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I left NYLIC because it was used at least one other time, and probably makes sense to use throughout rather than the full name. I included both the 3rd largest life and largest mutual because I felt they are both important and measure different things. I updated the ranking along with a ref. I also removed the claim that they are one of the largest in the world, because this is hard to substantiate and didnt say based on one criteria or provide a ref. The number of employees is in the infobox, I never see a need to repeat it, although I know others do. I've also left the part about the rating agencies sine I think its important. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to make any of the other changes, but this is all I feel comfortable with. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  17:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That all makes sense to me, Galatz and I very much appreciate your review and making these edits. Thanks again! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 18:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposing a few small updates to article
Hi again! I'm back in hopes of updating outdated information in this article. A reminder that I do have a financial conflict of interest, as I'm here on behalf of NYL as part of my work at Beutler Ink and will therefore not make any edits to the live article. It's my hope that an uninvolved editor (or editors) can review my proposed updates and make edits as appropriate. These requests are quite straightforward, and I'm happy to discuss further if needed.

I'd like to suggest the following updates:

1. Infobox updates
 * Update Operating income to $2.316 billion (2018)
 * Update Assets under management to $572.285 billion (2018)
 * Update employees in number of employees to 11,388 (2019)
 * Is it possible to update the founded parameter to use Template:Start date and age? E.g.

2. Introduction update
 * Update "NYLIC has about $570 billion in total assets under management, and more than $25 billion in surplus and AVR" to "NYLIC has about $572.2 billion in total assets under management, and more than $24.8 billion in surplus and AVR"
 * Update Fortune 500 ranking to No. 71
 * If possible, can editors consider changing "In 2007, NYLIC achieved the best possible ratings by the four independent rating companies (Standard & Poor's, AM Best, Moody's and Fitch)" to say "As of 2019, NYLIC maintained the best possible ratings by the four independent rating companies (Standard & Poor's, AM Best, Moody's and Fitch). "?
 * The existing wording suggests that this was only the case in 2007, whereas NYLIC continues to receive top ratings. I understand that using the New York Life website is not ideal. The source I've shared includes links to each of the ratings agencies' own reports. That said, I understand if this source cannot be used to update the existing material.

3. Ratings and rankings update
 * Update Fortune 500 ranking to No. 71

Would you be interested in reviewing these edits as you have with previous requests? Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 22:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Realized that it's been quite a while since I posted here, so adding edit request to see if an editor watching that queue might be able to take a peek. Thanks in advance, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 20:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The following are :
 * *Maintaining the best possible ratings by the four independent rating companies: I could not find the rating from Standard & Poor's, so that's X mark.svg Not done
 * *Surplus and AVR: No source provided, and I could not find one. X mark.svg Not done
 * *Operating income: I do think I could add this, for now, I'm turning it down. I would like it if you provided a source independent of NYLIC. X mark.svg Not done
 * &#123;&#123;replyto&#125;&#125; Can I Log In's (talk) page 23:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for these updates, Can I Log In! Unfortunately, there's not any independent sources for New York Life's operating income, surplus, and AVR available right now. All of that can be verified page 1 of the 2018 Annual Report. As the current article uses annual reports for that information, I wonder if you could consider using the 2018 Annual Report for the latest figures or consider removing the previous year's figures?


 * For the ratings, I have not been able to find an independent source for that information either. In a previous discussion above, I had proposed removing that sentence because it was unsourced, but another editor thought it was important and decided to keep so I wanted to follow up to offer at least some citation. Standard & Poor's is included in this table on the New York Life website, which is not an ideal source, so I understand if it cannot be used.


 * Lastly, thank you for updating the Fortune 500 ranking in the introduction. Please can you also update it in Ratings and rankings (citing, as in the introduction)?


 * Thanks for considering. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 01:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'll leave this to someone else. I did the Ratings and rankings part of this request though. I noticed in the 2018 annual report in small text states For definitions of the company’s performance measures, please see the Glossary of Terms on page 24. Of course, there's no universal definition, but with me noticing that, it could violate #1 in WP:ABOUTSELF.
 * The Maintaining the best possible ratings by the four independent rating companies part. I don't think you read my response for declining this in the first place correctly. I verified 3 out of 4. The one I couldn't verify was Standards & Poor's. For this part of your request to be accepted, you would need to provide the source from Standards & Poor. Reply to be when you do this part of the request.
 * So for now, I'm going to recuse from this request since I've answered it already unless you want another decline. &#123;&#123;replyto&#125;&#125; Can I Log In's (talk) page 22:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for updating the Fortune 500 ranking! I also appreciate your notes on the other items. I've closed the request for now and will revisit some of the remaining items as possible in future edit requests. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 20:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So for now, I'm going to recuse from this request since I've answered it already unless you want another decline. &#123;&#123;replyto&#125;&#125; Can I Log In's (talk) page 22:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for updating the Fortune 500 ranking! I also appreciate your notes on the other items. I've closed the request for now and will revisit some of the remaining items as possible in future edit requests. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 20:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * New York Life Building 2.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * New York Life Building 2.jpg