Talk:New York Life Insurance Company

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Finance & Investment C‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

New York City C‑class Mid‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Finance & Investment C‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cooperatives (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cooperatives, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CooperativesWikipedia:WikiProject CooperativesTemplate:WikiProject CooperativesCooperatives articles

Fortune 100 vs Fortune 500

What's the consensus on referencing Fortune 100 vs. Fortune 500 vs. Fortune 1000? Fortune 500 is the official list, but Fortune 100 is very commonly used for the top 100 companies in the Fortune 500. Fortune 1000 has its own entry, as does the 500, but 100 links to the 500 Crimson117 19:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on f100 vs f500. 2*6 11:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of the NYLIC article

I took a look thru some of the old versions of this article, thinking it was too short and too "press-releasish". Older versions contained some company history and, in general, had more information. I see there was a controversy relating to demutualization, but that wasn't the only information which was removed. What's wrong with including a summarized company history from 1845 to present? And it's stance on demutualization is quite unique. First it fought for passage of a New York state bill allowing for mutual holding companies, then it reversed course and chose to remain (and even flaunt) its mutuality. FTR, I'm on the other side of demutualization debate than the now-banned "PolicyOwner", but that doesn't mean I agree the topic should be ignored. It's part of their history. 2*6 11:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a company history would add a nice encyclopedic flavor to an otherwise press-releasey article. (Though I like the recent rewording by Delirium) Crimson117 21:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History restored, mostly from early versions of the article. I took time to reference a couple things, though. 2*6 00:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Income Figures

The currently stated income figures reflect fiscal year 2006. Times have quite obviously changed drastically since then, so could someone obtain 2008 figures if possible? KirkCliff2 (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italics

Does anyone know why this entry shows up in italics under the category page of Private equity firms of the United States?--BelBivDov (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism and Controversy section

I noticed today that DarylGolden and Jusdafax had restored this section. I'm not one of the ones who deleted it, but the section does seem to me to be biased, ill-researched, and possibly spammy. The references within the section are not compelling. Citing a law-firm's site that exists to seek clients so they can have someone to sue does not seem to me to be a particularly compelling argument. Blaming New York Life for the actions of one non-employee representative is misleading. Why even cite a Better Business Bureau page that merely says NYLIC failed to respond to complaints? It does not even say what those complaints were. Anyway, I thought I'd post here rather than get into some editing war on the main page. My suggestion is to either re-delete this section or rewrite it with more meaningful references. – 2*6 (talk) 06:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After looking into the references deeply, including the long legal documents, some of the above criticism above may be valid. The edit I reverted was by a first-time, unregistered editor. Deletion of an article section is not the way to begin a Wikipedia editorship, in my view. Perhaps the editor in question would like to discuss the matter? Jus da fax 07:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jusdafax, thank you for responding. I agree that an anonymous first-time editor deleting a non-favorable section of an article is suspicious on its face. Although I have never worked for NYLIC in any capacity, I do admit a favorable disposition toward the company. That is why I bothered to start this conversation. – 2*6 (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]