Talk:American International Group/Archives/2019

Is the latest content addition to the Growth section appropriate?

The latest edit by Special:Contributions/216.248.99.93 seems more focused on the actions of Putin than any actions by AIG. Is this relevant enough for inclusion? Further, the cited source claims that AIG "is about to make a big plunge into Russia's nascent home-mortgage market" but doesn't have any indication that they did. If this information were to be included in the article, it seems to me that it should be focused on AIG's foray into the market, and not Putin's agenda, and use a source that specifically mentions it happening, not in the future tense. Can anyone else weigh in?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I've done some additional research and so far I haven't been able to find any sources discussing the venture into Russia actually occurring, only forward-facing reports such as the current citation. I have found that Hank Greenberg did visit Russia in 2003, and that this venture was to be called Interros, but ultimately any information I could find about AIG's actions were speculative. If we can find a source that the venture happened, I'd propose rewriting the statement without mentioning Putin, and keeping the focus on AIG, otherwise I'd suggest removing it all together for lacking a proper source. Jytdog, ZCash1104, Vchimpanzee, can any of you take a look?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't know what is appropriate.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

(FacultiesIntact asked for my input on my talk page - diff) Seems relevant for a line in the timeline. I did spin it around so that it would focus on AIG rather than Putin (who is still mentioned). diff. Icewhiz (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz Thanks for taking a look. I've previously been advised not to use announcements like this as hard evidence of the event actually occurring, due the possibility of the deal falling apart. Could you help me understand how this isn't a violation of WP:SPECULATION?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Lasting secondary coverage would be better - but all we are sourcing is a blrub. Greenberg trip to Moscow is not WP:BALL, nor is AIG's attempts to possibly enter. Has we said that AIG entered the Russian market (as opposed to "attempted to enter" - then that would be unsupported by the cited source. Icewhiz (talk) 05:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: But if all we're discussing is Greenberg's trip to Moscow and an attempt to enter a market, I'd argue it should be removed for limited relevance. Wikipedia isn't appropriate to list CEO trips or potential business ventures; otherwise this article would be bloated.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@FacultiesIntact: The "latest edit by Special:Contributions/216.248.99.93" is something that changes over time. Please provide links to the specific diffs. EllenCT (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC on the inclusion of Hank Greenberg's meeting in Russia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the line "Also in 2003, AIG attempted to enter Russia's home-mortgage market, with Hank Greenberg visiting Moscow to promote this agenda with Vladimir Putin.[35]" be included in the Growth section? A discussion was previously started here, but no consensus was reached. RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 01:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC). --FacultiesIntact (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• No - Because it was an "attempt" and "visit". Had AIG actually enter into the home-mortgage market, that would be worth noting. But it didn't. Meatsgains^(talk) 03:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• Yes - given the extent of successful active measures campaigns by Russia in the US. EllenCT (talk) 06:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
• Include, and revise to reflect the broader scope of the AIG business in Russia in the 2000s (see proposed edit below) (Summoned by bot) While starting a mortgage business may or may not have happened, AIG played a significant role in post-crash Russia. Indeed, while mortgages were on the agenda, another purpose of the meeting was preparation for Putin's meeting with George W. Bush. From the Moscow Times:

Mortgages were also on the agenda Monday when Maurice Greenberg met with Putin to discuss boosting economic ties between the United States and Russia as part of the lead-up to Putin's summit with U.S. President George W. Bush at Camp David in September.

"AIG has had a presence in Russia for several years," Greenberg said in a statement Tuesday. "We believe the present environment is a favorable one for furthering our business relationships in the region."

Going into his meeting with Putin, Greenberg had noted that AIG and affiliated companies had invested some $300 million in Russia in recent years.

Looking at the 2005 AIG Annual Report, AIG claimed "leading ranking" in life insurance in Russia ("In Cyprus, Russia, the Slovak Republic and the Ukraine, ALICO maintained leading rankings in terms of market share."[1]. If the point of the section is to capture AIGs growth strategy in this period, this should be expanded. If it is to capture Maurice Greenberg's prominence on the world stage in that era, it should be expanded. Looking for more sources makes it clear that we should improve, not remove. Chris vLS (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Just to add a bit more, AIG itself says that relationship building is very relevant to its strategy and success. So, given that context, it's hard to argue that the Putin relationship building is irrelevant. In the 10-K for that period of time, AIG says

"AIG patiently builds relationships in markets around the world where it sees long-term growth opportunities. For example, AIG’s ability to expand its Chinese operations more quickly and extensively than its competitors is the result of relationships developed over nearly 30 years. AIG’s more recent extensions of operations into India, Brazil, Russia and other emerging markets follow the same pattern."[2]

So, given that context, hard to argue that this is an area to remove from the article about this time period.Chris vLS (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Propose the following edit: "In the early 2000s, AIG made significant investments in Russia as the country recovered from its financial crisis. In July 2003, Maurice Greenberg met with Putin to discuss AIG's investments and improving U.S.-Russia economic ties, in anticipation of Putin's meeting with U.S. President George W. Bush later that year." Chris vLS (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse Chris vLS's proposal. I was also asked here by the bot. EllenCT (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of COI editing

• FacultiesIntact, I want you to know that I assume good faith. But, I feel this is a bad look for you here. You work for AIG, so I would expect that you could have discovered that AIG's interests in Russia were broader than the original edit. Indeed, the annual reports from that era brag about how AIG has invested many years in building relationships in Russia. As a COI, you have the opportunity to spend more time than other people finding more information to improve your clients' articles. In my view, you should hold yourself to a very high bar when arguing to remove information from an article. Looking at the 10-K for that year and searching on Russia is not too much to ask. Looking into the first page of Google results on the Greenberg-Putin meeting and reading the first WP:RS article there is not too much to ask. I assume you didn't do these simple steps, because doing either one of those would not lead a good-faith editor to argue for this content to be removed. Please stick to adding and improving, or be more careful when asking to remove. Cheers. (Searching the the 2003 10-K for Russia and you find on the second result: "AIG patiently builds relationships in markets around the world where it sees long-term growth opportunities. For example, AIG’s ability to expand its Chinese operations more quickly and extensively than its competitors is the result of relationships developed over nearly 30 years. AIG’s more recent extensions of operations into India, Brazil, Russia and other emerging markets follow the same pattern.") Chris vLS (talk) 03:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Hi Chrisvls, your comments are noted and appreciated. Before I respond to them in turn, I want to make it clear that I do not work for AIG as an employee. It may seem pedantic, but it's an important distinction to me. I understand that a request submitted by a COI editor comes under strong scrutiny. That said, the request for comment is not a petition to remove content; it is a suggestion to evaluate whether that content qualifies as a future event. Future events as stated in WP:SPECULATION shall be under careful consideration for creating undue bias. Secondary sources are paramount for verifiability. In discussing AIG's "leading ranking", you cited an annual report, which is different from a 10-K. I agree that your suggestion for me to look deeper into the 10-K content has merit, because the 10-K is a SEC filing of past annual performance. Disclaimers about forward looking statements distinguish a projection from prediction. Either way you look at it, speculation is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Furthermore, if we are to present statements about the company's advancements in this specific region, where does this same reasoning apply to outlining all geographical markets potentially served by the company? How about we carefully look at the statements and secondary sources? I noticed that the secondary sources you've found are specific to the home mortgage business units, but the same 10-K you cited only mentions a Russian presence for the life insurance business units. What's your willingness to collaborate on ensuring this section is as accurate as possible?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think you understand my suggestion. So I will clarify it above, and here too: The Greenberg-Putin meeting is worth inclusion because 1) the secondary source states that one of the purposes of the meeting was discussing Putin's upcoming summit with the U.S. president -- which is very relevant for discussing AIG's prominence in the early 2000's; 2) quotes the AIG CEO as saying that AIG had made significant investments in Russia "for years", making the meeting and AIG's presence in Russia relevant to the early 2000's section of the article; 3) lists many other significant investments in Russia, making it further relevant to the early 2000's section of the article. So, the meeting and broader relationship should be mentioned even if the mortgage JV didn't come to fruition. Your argument that the edit is inappropriate speculation seems to ignore that the meeting occurred in the context of AIG having a lot of other business in Russia, which was not hard to discover. Finally, it is not every day that AIG announces $500m in investment, so even if it was an unsuccessful attempt to enter a market, the article could simply say that the announcement was made, but (if you could find a source that says it) the attempt was not successful. Cheers Chris vLS (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • In your comment above, FacultiesIntact, you say this is "not a petition to remove content". Please see that this is not a good comment. To quote you, 1) you said "it should be removed for limited relevance", 2) you asked if the content was “appropriate", 3) you asked if the content was "relevant enough for inclusion", 4) your proposal was to rewrite it "without mentioning Putin", 5) you titled the RfC as a yes or no vote on the "inclusion of AIG's Russia venture" and asked the question whether the content "should...be included" in the article, 6) it's an RfC, so if it went your way, at the close the content would be removed. So, it’s plain that you were proposing removing the content about the Putin meeting. So, please don't say you're not, and please hold your comments to a higher bar. And please don’t take this as an invitation to -- and I’m going to be very direct here -- waste our time by arguing why, in your view, this was not arguing for removal of content. The important thing is that you think about your perspective and process and how a different approach would have led you to ask 'why does ChrisvLS think I am proposing removal of content?", which would have led you to re-read your own comments, which would have led you to see one of these six things and understand why, which would have led you to make a better comment. Cheers. Chris vLS (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thanks, User:Rosguill for the close. Since the RfC to remove the content did not succeed, and there was at least some support to improve it, I have made the edit I proposed in response to the RfC above. Happy to discuss how to improve it more... the section is still not great. Cheers. Chris vLS (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)