Talk:Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Companies Portal
This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale.

[edit] Name

This article consistently refers to the company as MetLife, although this has not been its name for its entire history. Could somebody find the period-appropriate names for the eras mentioned? D. J. Cartwright 22:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean Up

This article changes tenses in the middle and reads a bit like something a company brochure might have. Can someone modify it to provide a more objective perspective? --IVinshe 18:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably because some of it was copied directly from the MetLife website. I've added the cleanup tag. Jauerback 03:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm new and too busy to learn at the moment, but this needs a neutrality tab. "Tradition of public service"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sesamekinjiru (talk • contribs) 23:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See also

Dear Jauerback, I noticed that you removed the link to Met English. Previously you removed (by not including in an rv) other "see also" entries that were relevant to the company: Peter Cooper Village, Park Merced and Park La Brea were all highlights of MetLife's history, perhaps not significant enough to include in the main article, but relevant enough for anyone wishing to learn more about the company. Can you please explain the reasoning behind these deletions? Many thanks, sys < in 14:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't mean to completely take them out. I only meant to remove the description of the Met English (only the link is necessary in a "See Also" section). If I removed the others, I didn't mean to. They may have been caught in the middle of a revert from vandalism. Feel free to add them back in. Jauerback 14:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, if you check the history, I'm not the one who removed the "See also" section. Here's the edit that did it. Jauerback 18:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Correct, as I mentioned above, what happened is that you inadvertently didn't restore it after the vandalism [1]. In any case, thanks for clearing things up, I'll also re-add some of the other relevant "see also" items. Cheers, sys < in 19:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)