Talk:Gen Re

Fair use rationale for Image:GenRe.gif

Image:GenRe.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 insure 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) 21:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Edits reverted

@Melcous: As you have reverted my last few edits 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:

1. Minor updates, +Moody's Financial Strength Rating: 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.
2. +Missing citations: A dead external URL (=CasActSoc) was updated; a "{{Citation needed}}" template (=1923 namechange) was replaced by reference to a book in my possession; another external citation (=1945 merger) was added; another "{{Citation needed}}" template (=1980 foundation and NYSE listing of holding company) was replaced by reference to the same book source.
3. +Corporate anniversaries: New content with reference, deemed relevant, neutral and hence acceptable.
4. -old articles no longer online, +recent articles: Three dated articles that are no longer accessible online (=Reactions magazine) were replaced by two recent, available ones.

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)

General Re, 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)