Talk:The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America

Untitled
Prior history (from my talk page):

Per denied deletion of Guardian Life Insurance article. Per Wikipedia standards, companies cannot edit their own pages/articles. Please advise. The entry can be constituted as vadalism per site standards. 15:38, 15 July 2008 (comment added by i.p. User:63.72.235.4 )


 * They are not supposed to, but they are not prohibited from doing so, if they do it objectively. In fact, I'd guess that about 1/2 of the entries for businesses and other organisations are done by people connected with them. We ask them not to, because it's hard to do it properly, with respect both to what they say, and how they say it. But it can be done, and if it isn't done right, we can help them edit it. This is discussed in considerable detail by Durova's excellent page of advice on the subject, our Business FAQ.


 * I shall keep an eye on the article. It needs keeping an eye on, for it has a curious history. It was originally entered as a stub back in 2006, and expanded in what seems to be an unobjectionable fashion by an ip account that is reported by whois to be connected with the company. Additional material that would appear to be controversial, inappropriate, and inadequately sourced   was added soon after by an account, User:Policyholder, accompanied by the removal of reasonable descriptive and historical material about the company. The account was soon  blocked indefinitely for adding such material to this and articles on other insurance companies.  Additional inappropriate material was later added -- surprisingly, from an ip address also reported to be connected with the company. Quality was restored by a very reliable Wikipedia administrator .  Unfortunately, it was later compromised again. Now, you, using an account reported by whois to also be associated with the company, have requested removal of the article. What I have done instead is restored the most recent good version of the article. If it is vandalized again, I will   protect it.


 * As I have said, you are welcome to add material to the article, but perhaps you would do well to register and declare any conflict of interest. DGG (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * given what has been recently added (and properly removed), I have found it necessary to block unregistered and new users for a month. If there's anything they might want to add, they should put it on the talk page & I or some other registered user will look at it. . DGG (talk) 03:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The article shows the CEO and COO of the company but the COO listed currently became the CEO and a new COO was named, effective July 1, 2011. As I work for the company I won't make the change but I'll include a source: http://www.guardianlife.com/company_info/who_we_are.html Unmasked (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

COI tag
As per this. Tag should stay til someone independent of the company reviews this article carefully and confirms they have done so here. Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Based on WP:COI a person who isn't independent can edit it. They just have to stay impartial so I am not sure why you are saying that. In reading the article I see nothing that implies this has been violated and as such I am removing the tag. If you disagree please be specific so issues can be rectified. - Galatz (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on COI a conflicted editor can make simple, noncontroversial changes (e.g updating number of employees, based on a reliable source) but are strongly encouraged to not edit directly anything else. (emphasis from COI).  And per the Terms of Use, any editor working on WP as part of their job or for any consideration must disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation".   must .  Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The tag can come off when someone independent of the company reviews the article to ensure that the article is OK per NPOV and VERIFY. Whoever that is, should say so, when they have done it. Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What specifically on WP:POV and WP:VERIFY are you referring to? I suggest you read WP:BPCOI. Wikipedia has rules governing this, and I do not believe you are following them. - Galatz (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you read WP:COI you will see that WP's concern with COI is that conflicted editors tend to add biased content to WP that violates NPOV. (and I will add, often fails VERIFY). Really, read it!  And if you actually read the tag on the article (please take a minute and go read it) you will see that it also makes reference to reviewing to ensure compliance with NPOV.  Jytdog (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes please do read it.
 * A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page.
 * It says that it MAY, because its a generic tag. You need to use judgment, read it yourself and decide. NO WHERE does it say the tag sits until someone tells you they are independent and sign off on it. You are also assuming I am associated with it for some unknown reason. I am looking to follow wikipedia's rules, not yours. Unless you can mention specific instances that show the tag needs to be there it should come down. - Galatz (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Galatz removed the tag without reviewing the article, in this dif. I just took time out of my fucking day and went quickly over the article and removed unsourced content and puffery. Sourcing is lame and sketchy (clear product of COI) but I don't have time to deal with this further. Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I added back the history section which you removed. Per WP:USI if a source could be found to support it and you dont want to or cannot then you tag it. This information seems like something that can be sourced, which is why I added the unreferenced tag yesterday. You are not supposed to remove content for the sole reason of it being untagged.
 * Although some references might fall into WP:FIRST, they follow the guidelines listed in it. I do not being you can claim WP:COI about it, but again you aren't being specific.
 * Additionally I suggest you read WP:CALM - Galatz (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * read WP:VERIFY which is policy. per WP:VERIFY unsourced content may be removed from WP, and unsourced content should not be added to WP, which is what you did by restoring the deleted content. If you want the content to be in WP, take the time to find sources for it. Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't make a difference to me one way or another if the content is there personally, but as a person who has taken countless hours improving tons of articles, I do not want to see one just having huge chunks removed for an incorrect reason. I am just following the WP rules. PLEASE show me where on WP:VERIFY it says to just remove any content you see immediately if it is unsourced.
 * The closest thing to it is Please remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced immediately. which this does not apply to as it is not contentious and this is not about a living person. Please show me what your basis is for removing this information. What you are doing is vandalism an article that is properly tagged as having issues. If you believe so strongly that all unsourced information must be removed immediately please go to CAT:AWUS and delete every single one as WP clearly has set up a tracking system for something that is in violation of their own rules. - Galatz (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * we all forget what policies actually say after a while. the lead of verify says "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." i too spend countless hours improving the encylopedia. Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Rather than continue this in two places, I have responded on User talk:Galatz if anyone wants to comment - Galatz (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * that was a separate conversation, about why you chose to remove the COI tag. This is for discussing article content. I would prefer - and in my view policy supports - leaving unsourced content out of the article until it can be sourced. But i will stop watching this article and you can do what you want.  this is not that important to me. Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Name Change
Can anyone give any insight to the change from the name Germania Life to Guardian Life? I've heard a story that it was around the time of WWI but I have no valid sources. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markglass2000 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)