Talk:Clover Health

Note

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clover Health. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Note that the above-linked AfD discussion took place well before the company was public, and as would be expected by WP:LISTED there is significant secondary source coverage of Clover Health as a public company. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Responding to editor AfC comments

Hi editors, thank you for your comments. I thought I would respond to both Nomadicghumakkad and Robert McClenon in the same post for the sake of simplicity.

First, with regard to the question on which 3 sources best demonstrate significant coverage, I would submit this Bloomberg article, this New York Times article, and this CNBC article. I'd also suggest this Bloomberg article as another example of significant coverage from a source on the reliable sources list. HighKing, Nomadicghumakkad suggested I ping you to review these as well. I hope you'll find that these sources not only meet the requirements of the corporate notability guidelines but also represent a range of viewpoints.

Second, with regard to Robert McClenon's concerns about reference bombing, writing with a non-neutral POV, and not not replying on third-party sources, I'll try to respond to each to get some additional clarity:

• Reference bombing: Reviewing the link you've provided, I don't feel the four examples of citation overkill apply. I've identified sources which demonstrate significant coverage, offering much more detail than passing mentions or "namechecks". There are a few instances in which citations are used to confirm specific claims (examples: employment numbers, locations of the company headquarters and major satellite offices, and the federal government verifying our involvement as a direct contracting entity with Medicare), but I do not believe the draft is built on such sources. Also, the draft does not name drop reliable sources or use statements like "This topic was covered by The New York Times."
• Lack of reliance on third-party sources: 32 of the 35 sources are third-party. Only 3 primary sources (one of which is from the federal government, not from Clover Health) are used for small details. If I have misinterpreted these sourcing requirements, please let me know. There are some sources in this draft which reference statements made by Clover Health, but I think you will find with a cursory review that those statements are bounded by independent reporting.
• Non-neutral POV: I did my best to ensure that I was representing simple facts without embellishment and without language that would be considered promotional. I also included facts in this draft that are somewhat negative about the company in such a manner I felt was compliant with Wikipedia policies on undue weight and balance. If I have misinterpreted those guidelines, can you please explain to me where specifically I went wrong and how I might go about fixing them? As it stands I am uncertain where exactly the issue lies.

I'm happy to address specific concerns and of course I invite editors to update the draft as needed before taking it live. I would like an opportunity to go through the consensus building process and work on making improvements. I would also like to resubmit this draft for community review soon if no one does so on my behalf.

I thank you all for your time and feedback. EmmaB15 (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

User:EmmaB15 - First, when I referred to third-party coverage, I did not mean that the sources were primary rather than secondary. I was referring to the text of the article, and meant that the content of the article was based on what the company says about itself, rather than what third parties such as business publications have written about it. Second, I did not review the 35 or 40 sources, because I said that there were too many of them. What I said is that, if you reference-bomb your draft with 35 or 40 sources, this decreases the likelihood that it will be accepted, because it deters a reviewer from evaluating the sources. That is why I said to specify between three and five sources to highlight. Third, I am aware that you did the best that you could to write neutrally. I am also aware that you did not write neutrally. It is difficult for conflict of interest editors to write neutrally, and I cannot give you any specific advice on how to do better. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey, see comments below on sources provided:

[1] - Doesn't seem in-depth. [2] - Funding announcement. Doesn't contribute to notability. [3] Could count towards WP:CORPDEPTH if we were being liberal. Very marginal. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, both, for your feedback so far. Robert McClenon, you've said "The burden is on the submitter to show that this draft is better than the deleted article," do you know if the old version exists somewhere so I can compare the two? I can also provide an overview of coverage received since the article was deleted nearly a year ago, if that's helpful. I'm also curious if you have any advice on where I might go for specific feedback on the tone of the draft?

Robert and Nomadicghumakkad, can either of you point out some examples of claims or sources that should be removed in order to make the draft easier for review? Similarly, if any of the sources are inappropriate for Wikipedia, please let me know so I can see if alternatives can be used instead. I really appreciate your help. EmmaB15 (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@EmmaB15: Below is the old article text, so you can review it. I saved it after voting keep, when it appeared there was a growing backlash against the company. Also see the deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clover Health. Many of my points are still valid for your version, but unless the burst of coverage for the meme stock incident sways others, you're going to have an uphill battle. I'll take a look next week and see if I can help with the tone and content, and perhaps cull some sources. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended content

Clover Health Company type Private Industry Health Care Founded 2014 Headquarters San Francisco, California, United States Website www.cloverhealth.com Clover Health is an American healthcare company whose goal is to use data analysis and preventive care to improve health insurance for seniors and give customers who use private versions of Medicare a less expensive option. The company’s technology recognizes when patients need medical treatment and then intervenes in their care with its own team of nurse practitioners and social workers to save money for both the member and the insurance company. The company was founded in 2014 by Kris Gale and Vivek Garipalli, and currently operates in New Jersey. In September 2015, Clover Health raised $100 million in equity and debt funding, led by First Round Capital. Athyrium Capital Management also participated in the funding. Shortly after the company’s funding round in September, Clover Health announced its $35 million financing round led by Sequoia Capital on December 16, 2015. Clover Health raised a $160 million Series C round of funding in May 2016, led by Greenoaks Capital. The company plans to use the funding to scale its technology and data science platforms, and expand into new markets. On 12 May 2017 Clover health got $130 million from Google Ventures, Greenoaks and other new investors. It was announced on 6 October 2020 that Clover Health would go public via a reverse merger with a special-purpose acquisition company. Several New Jersey legislators called for a probe of Clover following an investigation into a previous company CarePoint Health System a for profit healthcare system founded by Vivek Garipalli and Jeffrey Mandler prior to founding Clover. The investigation showed that CarePoint had funneled $150 million in management fees to CarePoints owners.

References

TimTempleton Thanks for the old article text and for taking a look at the sources and tone in my draft! Look forward to your feedback. EmmaB15 (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@EmmaB15: I cleaned it up - you'll have a better chance submitting it now. Good luck! TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: Thanks for taking a look! I'll take it back to my team and we'll look at resubmitting at some point in the future! EmmaB15 (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Timtempleton, Andrew Toy has transitioned into the role of Chief Executive Officer of Clover Health effective January 1, 2023. Vivek Garipalli is now Executive Chairperson. Is this source acceptable? https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/clover-health-andrew-toy-ceo/629168/ EmmaB15 (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

SEC investigation closed

• What I think should be changed: The SEC investigation for Clover Health has been closed.
• Why it should be changed: This materially impacts the way the company is viewed and is signifiant change on a short article.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

https://investors.cloverhealth.com/financial-information/sec-filingshttps://www.streetinsider.com/Corporate+News/Clover+Health+Investments+%28CLOV%29+says+SEC+concluded+its+investigation/23781200.html

50.203.34.153 (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Three issues:

You need to state your conflict of interest.

The link you provide says "page not found".

What exactly are you looking to change in the article?

Regards, Axad12 (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry! It looks like the two links I sent got bundled together. I will separate below. I'm not sure what I need to state as my COI - I used the templated form which did not ask me to specify.

8K: https://investors.cloverhealth.com/financial-information/sec-filings

Article coverage: https://www.streetinsider.com/Corporate+News/Clover+Health+Investments+%28CLOV%29+says+SEC+concluded+its+investigation/23781200.html

I would recommend the article include a resolution to the SEC investigation. For example, "Following the report, the SEC opened an investigation into Clover Health. The SEC closed this investigation in September 2024, recommending no enforcement action." 50.203.34.153 (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Please stop wasting volunteer time and specify your conflict of interest in relation to this subject. E.g. are you an employee of the subject? See WP:DISCLOSE. Axad12 (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Edit request was produced by an IP address who did not confirm their COI, thus inadmissible. Axad12 (talk) 08:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

References