Talk:Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City. 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/20130417191811/http://www.bluekc.com/About/Blue_KC_History.aspx to http://www.bluekc.com/About/Blue_KC_History.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120706030415/http://www.ncqa.org/tabid/1048/Default.aspx to http://www.ncqa.org/tabid/1048/Default.aspx

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 04:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

proposed temp article

Hi! I'm posting here on behalf of Blue KC, which is a client of my employer. I ran two text comparisons against the linked sources of plagiarism: one for the archived bluekc.com page and one for the archived ncqa.org page. I've drafted up a temp version of the article here which removes all copied content. I'm also in the middle of working on a more drastic overhaul of the page, which will address the flags at the top of the article and from which I had already removed all copied content. That isn't quite ready for community review yet, but I'll share it as soon as it is. In the meantime, hopefully the temp article will suffice. Thanks! Mary Gaulke (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

COI edit requests

Hi! I'm here on behalf of Blue KC (which is a client of my employer) to request a few edits to this article. I worked these up prior to the copyright flag, but my proposals still remove all flagged content (which, if I recall correctly, was either unsourced or sourced to primary sources). All the edits are mocked up here, sans the logo since this is in userspace.

1. FYI, I added a logo to the infobox.

2. Removing the cleanup templates at the top of the article – I believe I address them with the following edits.

3. Adding refs and revising language for neutrality throughout the article.

4. Adding the area served, the CEO, and the number of employees to the infobox, with sources.

5. Deleting info for which I couldn't find sources and non-notable info sourced to primary sources (nothing negative).

6. Adding more recent information to the "History" section.

7. Adding a brief new section, "Spira Care".

8. Removing unsourced and arguably non-notable "Subsidiaries and affiliates" section.

Due to my COI, I won't be editing the article directly. I appreciate any help or feedback. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Reply 28-AUG-2019

  Unable to review  

• The {{copyvio/core}} template placed in the article prevents the editing of blanked content until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent. As the edit request process cannot continue without their assistance, the COI editor is urged to make contact with one of those level editors in order to proceed with their request.

Regards,  Spintendo  07:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Reopening now that the copyvio issue has been cleared up! Mary Gaulke (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Reply 12-SEP-2019

  Edit request implemented    Spintendo  11:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Hi, thanks for your help here! Just to confirm – I assume you found the NCQA accreditation insufficiently notable? And for the WP:NORG flag, you're looking for a wider variety of sources?

Thanks again. I know this work can be tedious. Mary Gaulke (talk) 16:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I left the Notability template because the issues which were corrected with my edit involved issues of disclosure and references. To have the notability template removed, you should ask the editor who assigned the template 6+1⁄2 years ago — in this case AllyD — in order to find out from them if it can be removed. Since they placed the template, they are in the best position (even six years later) to know whether or not the issues which caused its placement have been corrected. You may contact them directly by placing a new message on their talk page. With regards to NCQA, the issue involves the Wellness & Health Promotion Accreditation claim, which is not listed under Hospital accreditations similar to more well known programs, such as the Joint Commission. By and large these accreditations are used by the hospitals to improve patient care and outcomes. Most hospitals use one — not all hospitals do, but most of them. They are perhaps not as influential as they once were years ago, and I think that some hospitals may use them now more for their promotional value to customers than for anything else, although the information they deliver to hospitals who purchase them is still important and valuable, I just dont feel as if they are as important to mention in the article. Now there may be other editors who feel differently, and you're certainly welcome to ask others how they feel about it — I wont take offense if you do. Regards,  Spintendo  17:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback! I've reached out. Mary Gaulke (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Notes

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Notability query

As requested by MaryGaulke, I have looked at the revised article and its references to assess whether the Notability issue flagged in 2013 still stands.

• Firstly, it is worth saying that the notability guidelines for companies have been substantially revised since 2013, to distinguish substantial from trivial coverage and independent from dependent coverage.
• For me, the sources in the current article are a mixture of primary (the company's own website plus the first-person-voice "healthiest employers" item from Kansas City Business Journal) and the "brief announcements, and routine coverage" which fall under the "Examples of trivial coverage" heading.

These do all help verify this to be a company going about its business, but something more would be needed to demonstrate it to be a subject of encyclopaedic importance. AllyD (talk) 06:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@AllyD: Thanks for the feedback! Do you think coverage of Blue KC's withdrawal from the ACA exchange would qualify here? Or does that fall under coverage "of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business"? Mary Gaulke (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• Making decisions to enter, leave or adjust a firm's proposition in a market are the standard activity of any company's management, and the announcement relating to such a decision would not generally provide significant coverage. AllyD (talk) 06:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

MaryGaulke, I agree with the assessment of AllyD – the coverage is apparently primary, local, and of the routine business of the company, and so does not meet WP:NCORP. To get a community-wide consensus I have started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City. Also pinging Spintendo, who has recently contributed to this page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)