Talk:Unum/Archives/2013

Cleanup To-Do List

Feel free to add more entries to this list:

• Finish adding infobox information
• Complete citations
• Proper corporate history
• Move from unumprovident to unum

Qmax 15:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

What's going on

In the sentence below, I took out the word "suddenly" that appeared after the word post as there isn't anything cited here that supports Susan Ring left her position with the company suddenly. http://www.investors.unum.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=112190&p=irol-newsArticle_print&ID=1448892&highlight= In July 2010, Susan Ring, the CEO of Unum UK left her post and was replaced by Jack McGarry from Unum US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmcabee (talk • contribs) 15:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone seems to have trashed this article and replaced it with text lifted from Ununproviden'ts website. I'm reverting. Jaysbro 16:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverted. Looks like a UnumProvident employee/loyalist, who was anonymous from 198.51.179.254 until it got banned, then registered a user name of Dsummer. Jaysbro 17:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, 198.51.179.254 is registered to the UnumProvident Corporation. [1] Conscious 19:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The link to the "outlaw company" quote on the CA insurance commission website, by the former CA insurance commissioner, John Garamendi, is official and still valid, so I have restored it. A link has been added to a major LA Times article updating information on the Multistate Review. If interested parties want to add cited, valid links to journals, not just more corporate links, I will respect that, but please stop removing my own valid and cited links to official regulatory organizations and major periodicals. I will be glad to discuss this. I have enabled email from other users. Cybervigilante 23:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Non-NPOV material

I've removed the following because it's both promoting a point of view and not at all written in an encyclopedic style... it looks like it was just lifted from somewhere else. Some of what's said may be worthwhile for inclusion if someone feels like editing and appropriately referencing it. Pinball22 20:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE - A CLAIMS FEEDING FRENZY

25/27/07 - Those who are currently receiving benefits under any type of policy of UNUMProvident (or subsidiary company) should sit up and take notice. A claims “feeding frenzy” is now taking place with increased “risk management” activity including surveillance, medical document requests, IME’s, field representative visits, and of course the application of questionable claims practices across the board. The fear of the multistate settlement is over and the powers that be at UNUMProvident are once again on the path of seeking and targeting profitability at the expense of the insureds. Overdue “any occupation investigations” are now in full swing, hopefully to deny claims at the 24 month change in definition. Unfair applications of the mental and nervous provision limitations for physical impairments is also evident among those who have Lyme Disease, Lupus, MS, RSD, Depression, Anxiety.

Please be aware that on appeal UNUM is also attempting to get the insureds to submit to IME’s in an effort to supplement a previously poor investigation. Large numbers of claims are being placed on Reservation of Rights at the change in definition (a type of claim targeting) to bolster profitability reporting for year end 2006 and into 2007. No claim should be placed on reservation of rights status without proof a future liability will NOT exist. Attorneys, investment brokers and insureds should take note of the above information and be prepared to respond to UNUMProvident immediately upon recognition of the above practices. Aggressive claims management of this kind from UNUMProvident was last observed just prior to the merger in 1999. In any case, volumes of insureds are being affected by UNUMProvident’s current claims strategy.

Not a Minor Edit

Cybervigilante's April 12, 2007 edits to the UnumProvident article are not minor, even though that is how they were tagged. Some would consider them to be controversial, and I suspect there may be some discussion as to whether they are in agreement with Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view POV. Wikipedia is an open forum, and all are welcome to participate. However, Wikipedians ask that edits to articles be correctly tagged. Minor is only used for simple edits that do not change any of the information in the article, such as grammar, spelling and format modifications. Truthanado 23:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I am still learning this format and will tag major edits next time. The CA dept of insurance is a neutral body, and I feel the link to it is therefore neutral. The seventy-five percent figure is indeed on number of claims, not total monetary amount owed. Even UP will admit to that. I am not a Unum claimant, have no emotional context in the matter, and strive to be accurate. I think I have the NY Times beat in that regard, although that's not saying much. Cybervigilante 00:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone has trashed the wiki again and removed all non-booster references. I will revert when I get time. Yeesh.

You can include links to "anti-Unum" content if it qualifies as notable per WP:EL. A really straightforward way of explaining it is if there was a newspaper article about the controversy which references content and/or a website found on any of those anti-Unum websites, then you can link to that content. You can't simply add an "external link" to anti-unum content because that content references Unum. Simply being "anti-unum" doesn't make the content notable. I'm no Unum booster (I don't work there or have anything to do with them), but I will keep removing the not-notable links and will appeal any efforts to include that content to a third party and/or mod. Also, please name/datestamp your entries. Qmax 18:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

However, deleting "non encyclopedic, not cited, biased, nonsense content" also included removing appropriate links to the insurance departments of the states of Tennessee and California that included information and documents associated with the company's claims problems. Having one state fine you $8 million and another one call you an "outlaw" are pretty signficant occurrences that should to be included in any comprehensive discussion of an important American business. Removing those links and other info included in previous articles may be a contributing factor in these "trashings", as would putting other editors on "notice" in ways that could end up stifling participation from those who do have the expertise. As I used to work for Unum, I would feel uncomfortable at contributing a large or controversial part of this article to avoid any perception of COI, but I would hope editors would incorporate the links back in the article, not as "anti-Unum", which they are not, but as one of the many events that shaped Unum into what it is today. Flowanda 02:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't care if you worked for Unum at some point. I work at Coptix, and contributed significantly to its article cleanup after someone made the article a few weeks ago after the Karl Rove scandal. You're right about the links to the TN site, but I think they need to be there with a encyclopedic chapter about the situation, wherein those links are citations, and not just simple external links tossed up haphazardly. Qmax 04:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)