Talk:Humana


2013 promotional content tag

Hello! I'm E, a representative for Humana. I saw that this article had a promotional tag on it that is over a decade old. Specifically, it mentions "removing promotional language and inappropriate external links"

I looked into the history and the tag seems to be pertaining to an old "Humana's Prescription Home Delivery" section with a link to the service both in the reference and in the External links section. You can see it here

That section and link have since been removed and editors will see the page overall has been substantially changed since the tag was added in 2013. Would an editor remove this tag? Because of my conflict of interest, I will not make direct changes to the article. Thanks! E Humana (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear why the tag was added. There's no edit summary nor corresponding talk page discussion.
Skimming the current references, it appears the article is heavily dependent upon press releases and similarly poor and promotional sources. Given this, the template still seems to fit, specifically, adding encyclopedic text written from a neutral point of view. --Hipal (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Promotional tag has to do with marketing-style or showboating language in the article, not the use of suboptimal sources. I have scanned the article for such and found nothing that is a particular problem that would require this tag, and have removed the tag. If anyone wants to add better citations, have at it. Stefen 𝕋ower Huddle • Handiwerk 18:20, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of the general consensus around the use of the tag is not consistent with your interpretation. I've added a third-party tag after skimming over the first 15 refs and finding many problems. --Hipal (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of the general consensus is what I stated, having been a Wikipedian for nearly 22 years. The third-party tag is a reasonable tag. Just because citations are insufficient doesn't mean "promotion" is happening to the degree where we would have a concern that demands a Promotional tag. Stefen 𝕋ower Huddle • Handiwerk 20:05, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad we agree on the way forward. --Hipal (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request Oct 21

Thanks Hipal I see what you mean! I did some research and found sourcing more in line with what Wikipedia requires. The draft can be found in my user space, a quick breakdown is as follows:
Let me know if you have any thoughts, thanks! E Humana (talk) 14:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That's a lot to review. Glancing over it, a lot of the references look to be press releases or the like. It will take some careful reviewing to go over them all. --Hipal (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hipal! Let me know if you have any questions. I know it is a lot so I am happy to provide clarity. E Humana (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you could identify any that might be press releases or something similar, that would help. --Hipal (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hipal, when I was looking for sources, I was avoiding press releases and stuck to items with bylines when possible.
That being said, I looked at these closer and have a few notes on them for you to consider
  • Sources #4, #5, #6 link the announcements but don't attribute the content to it.
  • Source #3 credits Bloomberg
  • Source #8 and #18 have a staff writer byline but does look like it could have content lifted from a PR, but no attribution to one
  • Source #13 uses a quote from a press release
  • Source #14 and #15 are from the Fortune 500 website (which appears to be standard practice Fortune rankings)
  • Source #16 and #17 are from the race's published results (which appears to be standard practice for this type of information)
  • Sources #1-2, #7, #9-12, all appear reliable to me
With the exception of #14-17, the articles all at least have a staff writer byline, showing some level of fact checking and editorial oversight.
Happy to continue the discussion! Let me know what you think, E Humana (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not getting back to this sooner. I'm afraid that I still have little time to put into this, nor do I expect that will change in the coming months.
Re PGA: Are there sources that can verify that it is ongoing? Without them, the statement fails verification.
Re Avality, mobileStorm, Enclara Healthcare, etc : Why are they important to Humana?
While we do need to make sure references are reliable, we also need to make sure they indicate that the information is WP:DUE and encyclopedic. --Hipal (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hipal Good questions!
Re PGA: That is a good point and you are right about the point in time, since there is sourcing to show more concrete dates. Here is a better proposal:
Re Avality, mobileStorm, Enclara Healthcare, etc: I was looking more at sourcing than considering WP:DUE. As for WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC, I do think acquisitions, subsidiaries, divisions etc. do have enough knowledge value to warrant inclusion.
Let me know if you have any other questions! I understand you're busy and this will take a closer eye, I will just check in intermittently like I have been to see if you had any new thoughts. Thanks, E Humana (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder about this. Re PGA tour sponsor:

The Sports Business Journal ref appears to be a warmed-over press release, so I'm unsure how much to rely upon it.

Maybe just

Humana was a tour partner of the PGA Tour beginning from 2005 to 2015.[1][2]

I'm unclear if the change in Humana's role in 2011 should be included as well. --Hipal (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hipal I think that language is good! Let me know if there are any other questions. E Humana (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it and removed the related content sourced to press releases. --Hipal (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hipal Thanks for the update! Did you have any thoughts or questions on the sourcing updates and fixes in the above initial request in the expand box? If it helps, I can break out a new request to remove what has been done already. Just let me know! E Humana (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, breaking out new request(s) would help. Maybe group together simple requests that you feel should be easy to review and straightforward to approve. --Hipal (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Filtered request

Per Hipal I have taken the previous request seen above and removed what has already been done so the outstanding items can be evaluated.

Let me know if there are any questions E Humana (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Hipal: This is now the oldest in progress request. Can you please respond or remove the under review tag? Czarking0 (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the tag to partially implemented. I don't see my schedule opening up enough for continuing to work on this alone in a timely manner. --Hipal (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I understand! I have added the edit request template. Thanks for the heads up! E Humana (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello StefenTower, I wanted to tag you on this request because I saw above your concerns about citations for this article and updating the tag. This request is to update the citations with neutral and independent sources in order to overall improve the article. Since I have a conflict of interest as an employee of Humana, I cannot make these updates myself and an independent editor should review it instead. I thought you would find these sources I have presented useful if you continue to go throughout the article and improve it. Let me know if you have any questions! E Humana (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite a bit to go through. I may pick at it here and there as I work on other things the next few weeks. Thank you for the thorough request at any rate. Stefen 𝕋ower Huddle • Handiwerk 00:58, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Same here: May partake bit by bit…
Gobucks821 (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A response has not yet been received for this question.

Reply 22-MAY-2026

  Request closed for inactivity  

  • The above edit request has not received any responses over the past 3 weeks (22 days in total).
  • Discussion is often a key component to implementing edits, and requests may be adversely affected when they fail to garner input from either reviewing or requesting editors. In light of this — and as a safeguard — this request has been declined as needing more discussion.[1]
  • The COI editor is urged to revive stalled communications by making contact with local editors on those editor's own talk pages, and then by moving those discussions back to this talk page.
  • The COI editor may also wish to broadcast requests for edits at the talk pages of the WikiProjects which govern this article. Those projects are usually listed at the top of an article's talk page.

Regards,  Spintendo  07:24, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Wikipedia:COI edit requests - Declined requests". Wikipedia. 22 April 2026. If your request is denied, analyze the discussion or the reason why it was declined and make the relevant changes to the request or follow the advice in the thread if any and if appropriate. You may be directed to seek consensus, which means that your request is probably unclear or needs more discussion.

Operations section addition

After recent feedback, I wanted to present editors with a diff of all the changes I plan on suggesting to improve this page. If you'd like to leave notes on the whole thing, feel free to leave feedback on this post or the draft's Talk page.

For now, I wanted to start off small with a proposal to add an Operations section. This includes content about the company, including leadership, company size, and functions/subsidiaries.

Operations
Executive leadership includes Jim Rechtin (CEO),[1] Japan Mehta (chief information officer),[2] and Celeste Mellet (chief financial officer).[3] It is headquartered at the Humana Waterside and Clocktower in downtown Louisville, Kentucky.[4]

Humana is the second-biggest Medicare Advantage insurer in the United States, as of 2025.[5] It has both an insurance segment and pharmacy and primary care subsidiary called CenterWell.[6]

References

  1. ^ Minemyer, Paige (14 May 2024). "Jim Rechtin to step into Humana CEO role on July 1". Fierce Healthcare. Retrieved 22 April 2026.
  2. ^ Casolo, Elizabeth (3 Feb 2026). "Humana deepens Google Cloud ties with AI-powered Agent Assist". Becker's Payer Issue. Retrieved 22 April 2026.
  3. ^ Minemyer, Paige (3 December 2024). "Humana CFO Susan Diamond to step down in January". Fierce Healthcare. Retrieved 21 April 2026.
  4. ^ Evans, Olivia (5 June 2025). "Humana CEO talks about company leaving iconic downtown Louisville tower". USA TODAY. Retrieved 22 April 2026.
  5. ^ Mathews, Anna Wilde; Weaver, Christopher (5 June 2025). "Humana to Back Curbs to Medicare Advantage Billing Practices". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 22 April 2026.
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference Evans 2023 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Let me know if there is any feedback. Thanks! E Humana (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.