Talk:Aetna/Archives/2012

NPOV

I'm not sure where to start on making this an NPOV page. My only experience with Aetna as my health insurance provider has been distinctly negative. --Joefrank 20:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

i wouldn't consider this POV, but a bit of cleanup and expansion would cure its' ills. Joeyramoney 20:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Make it NPOV by giving it a negative slant? Huh? Leebo⁸⁶ 14:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think what he meant was he does not know how to put the NPOV tag on the page. Mynameisryan812 18:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Pronounced

Is it EIGHT-nuh, or ETT-nuh? jnestorius^(talk) 16:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's Ett-nuh. Fatla00 (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I've always heard it pronounced the latter way. ChaosMaster (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Expansion of History Section

Would there be any objections to an expansion of the history section? The company is over 150 years old now, and the current incarnation of the section doesn't help the reader understand how this company evolved into what it is today. Paul C. Lasewicz (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Renewed Vandalism

A new editor, 207.145.212.178, has begun vandalizing the Aetna page in a manner identical to previous vandalism by user: 207.145.212.178, user: 74.215.128.82 and user: 129.137.84.171 (who were eventually blocked). Danieldis47 (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Renewed Vandalism... Renewed Again

Vandal returns as user:12.130.119.144. Danieldis47 (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

HAHA the first sentence in the article is "Aetna, Inc. (NYSE: AET) is an American death panel, ...". EPIC!

Yes, it's so funny to see a page vandalized by anonymous cowards. Markvs88 (talk) 11:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Aetna 2010 NYC contracts

user: Erxnmedia has added important information about a current Aetna contract dispute in NYC. However, the great level of detail about this dispute is quite inconsistent with the rest of the article, as is the extended back-and-forth quoted dialogue. This article is probably not the place for a detailed airing of ongoing grievances against the company. And, critically, the sourcing of this detail is all very weak and below Wikipedia standards. It includes: press releases; a corporate web site; and a link to the subscription page for an online newspaper. I suggest a reversion to the "13:04, 28 June 2010" version of the article, which includes sufficient information about this particular contract dispute.

Thanks. Danieldis47 (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The 2010 section is comparable in size to the 2009 section and documents 2 separate contract disputes which happen to be similar in nature. The information is from available sources. The news articles available quote the same sources. Erxnmedia (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Huge gaps in history section

The history section begins with 1819 - so and so becomes the second Aetna president...??? NO mention of how the company was founded, or who the FIRST president was! Then it jumps from the 1910s to the 1960s, completely skipping over the decades in between, despite a specific mention in the 1880s section that the home office was on Main St for 42 more years, meaning the current landmark building opened in 1922...there's absolutely no mention of new headquarters opening. 99.98.221.223 (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)