Jump to content

Talk:Farmers Insurance Group

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cleanup and edits

[edit]

Here's what I've done.

  • Removed an image of a car with the Farmers logo on the side. This image seems superfluous and does not demonstrate anything meaningful. Perhaps an image of just the company's logo would be better.
  • Added company infobox.
  • Shuffled/removed/edited information in the introduction. The information under the (new) Activity section bothers me, but I need to think about it a bit more. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 17:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More edits:

  • History section - removed a lot of text that was copied directly from here.
    • The history section was clearly lacking and so I have added some of the major events in a timeline. This is taken from an International Directory of Company Histories Volume 25 book. I intend to add more with references if there are additional, notable events in the timeline of the company.

--Alyssa Hoffel (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The info on being incorporated in Nevada in 1927 is contradictory to the fact that the company was founded in 1928.
  • Removed over-wikifying of links.
  • Added confusing template; even I'm confused by this.

— HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 17:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the constant edits/updates, but I can't do all of this in one sitting.

  • Accolades section: moved it further up the page.
  • Removed a part about a link on the Zurich page about forest fires. The link no longer shows the reference, and seemed sort of hearsay.
  • Criticism: modified links to remove WP:WW; also removed Texas link that was dead.

I'll work more on this later. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 18:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant Edits to HelloAnnyong's Edits:

  1. Added additional information to company infobox. References added.
  2. Updated the first 2 paragraphs for clarity and consistency with a verifiable reference. References added.
  3. Updated History section to more readable format.
  4. Bolded HelloAnnyong's contributions since this is becoming very disorganized and difficult to read.

--Alyssa Hoffel (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a suggestion on the rankings. Instead of just citing those areas where Farmers lagged, saying something like: "Of 26 Auto insurance companies surveyed by JDPower and Associates, Farmers was tied for 20th place." That gives a much truer picture of the overall ranking. I may not like it, just like I don't like citations to individual cases that make it into the news without giving both sides, it is not cherry picking. I still wish the complaint section referenced ratios rather than just absolute numbers, but I can live with it as it is, if need be. Buzzards39 19:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One last overhaul of the criticism page:

  • Reorganized to separate out lawsuits and use of Colossus program.
  • Recited all articles and explained them more clearly.

I believe all of the criticisms are stated clearly and without a point of view.

Buzzards: we can add a ranking in if you'd like; that's not too big of a deal to me. As to the lawsuits, I think it would be fair to state the the company's position, if you can find a third-party article that gives their side. I'll try to do that now.

Anyway, I'm hopefully done with the first round of edits. What do you guys think? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the updates. I disagree with Buzzard about the Rankings section. JD Powers gave Farmers their lowest ratings and it is cited. This article isn't about other insurance companies so they done necessarily need to be included. Router 21:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you're okay with the updates. I see no reason why we can't include both the statement that is there, and the ranking as well. Would it be acceptable if we said something like "In the JD Powers 2007 Collision Repair Satisfaction Study, which covered customers surveyed between 2001 and 2004, Farmers Insurance received low ratings in all four of the studied categories: "Overall Experience", "Claim Settlement", "Claim Representative" and "Claim Process and Procedures".[8] Of the 26 companies surveyed, Farmers was tied for 20th place."? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 21:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am agreeable to your addition if the first sentence is accurate, stating "Farmers Insurance received the lowest possible ratings in all four..." Router 14:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't ask for other than fair. If all the rankings are low, then that's where they are. My problem has been with rankings that *only* mentioned the low rankings. If we use 20th out of 26 works, OK. If not, to say that "Consumer Reports gave Farmers it's lowest rankings in categories A, B, C, but higher rankings in categories D,E,F,G", then that is more complete and balanced than just mentioning the low areas. In JD Powers 2007 "Homeowners" and "Auto" rankings, Farmers was middle of the pack-lower than some, but higher than others. I cannot access the Consumereports article, but I know that there were more categories than just the couple cited. If the cite is not accessible, should it be mentioned? The answer may be yes, but I would be of the opinion that a cite no longer accessible has a higher standard of balance than another cite that is still "clickable". HelloAnnyong [ t · c ], I appreciate your help with all this. Buzzards39 22:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it is being selective. But without the source, we can't really say one way or the either, so I'd say let's just leave it as is. If we can get our hands on it, great. Until then, I'm not sure where to go... — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 02:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally satisfied with most of the revisions, though of the decided opinion that the Consumer Reports cite is still cherry-picked. I have a question about the Lawsuit section. Some of the lawsuits would be notable, such as the overtime pay dispuite, though that issue has also cropped up in many other industries, especially in California. And I am not trying to whitewash criticism. But I see that Router has posted another lawsuit to the section. The nature of the Insurance industry is that there are thousands of lawsuits going on at any one time, many of which are decided in the Insurers favor, and some of which are for large amounts, but they are not notable. They are just disputes over coverage, like the last one posted. Some of these lawsuits cited seem less than notable. The only thing they have in common is that someone mentioned them in the newspaper, to there is a link to cite. So is every large judgement notable? I can see with the overtime suit, and the toxic mold suit was the first of many affecting lots of companies in Texas, but it was the first, so OK. But the ones simply where there is a garden-variety dispute, even though Router googled them and put them in his gripe site, do not seem to rise to the level of uniqueness and notabilty to pass the NPOV test. If they do, then every time Farmers is sued, Router or someone else can just post the link, and it would seem as if Farmers gets sued more than other insurers, which just is not a supportable conclusion. Buzzards39 23:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a valid point. Only truly notable lawsuits should be mentioned on the page. The one that Router added seems okay, but I would cut it off at that, and allow only major cases to be added, potentially if others are removed in their place. Googling for "Walker v. Farmers Insurance Exchange" yields 456,000 hits, which is.. considerable. But you're right, it would be inappropriate to just put every case that comes by. I'd cut it off here.
As to the Consumer Reports issue, the reference isn't so important to me that I would demand it stay. I'd like to hear Router's opinion on it, though. I think the 2006 article is considerably more important than the 2003 one. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 00:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the Consumer Reports 2004 data and the reference per discussion here. Both Consumer Reports articles are important as one has to do with homeowners insurance and the other about paying off auto claim and both are cited. Router 18:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, but you can't just link to the Consumer Reports main page. It needs to be a direct link to the source. I searched through the CR site, but I can't find the article in question. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, can the two of you please indent your comments properly using colons (:) rather than just putting stars next to your posts? It would help a lot to keep the comments in order here. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems they revamped the web site and the link I have is dead [1]. I do have a print out (PDF) of the report. What to do? Router 19:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find the article printed elsewhere? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did some looking unsuccessfully. Router 21:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the magazine cite that was rewritten: The reason that I added it was that the article, written by an uninterested source, singled out Farmers for exceptional service and outreach, CEO being on the spot, etc... As it has been rephrased, it is not notable, since it sounds like Farmers was just one among many, doing what other insurers were doing. If there is an NPOV issue with the original wording, or something closer to it, then the cite should be deleted, since the point I made with the lawsuit cites was that routine mention of the company in media-good or bad-is not notable. How to maintain the point of the cite-that Farmers was doing things above what would be expected and above what other insurers were doing, while not violating NPOV? Buzzards39 19:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, it was an inline quote that was incorrectly referenced. Next, and more importantly, I question how reliable "Family Security Matters" is as a source. I don't know the site, and it doesn't seem like a reputable source of knowledge. That's why I added the second reference that specifically mentioned Farmers. The quote says "Insurance companies, most especially Farmers Insurance..." - insurance companies. Yes, it specifically points out Farmers, but other groups were there too. Take a look at this article - it mentions State Farm, Farmers Insurance, and American International Group Inc. It's not like Farmers Insurance was the only company there. And that article is from the LA Times, which is a considerably more reliable source than "Family Security Matters." Having said all that, I left the source in, but I cleaned it up a bit. I'll give credence to you saying that it doesn't really show that Farmers went above and beyond, but they weren't the only ones. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I added a bit more, and added that LA Times reference in. How is it now? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 20:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lot better. If Farmers had only done what others had done, then the cite would not have been notable. The point that was being made by adding the cite to the article was that Farmers moved faster than other insurers to respond to a major catasrophe and that upper management went into the field to communicate with customers. That seemed worthy of an "accolade". Just paying claims-well, that's what insurers are supposed to do. Buzzards39 20:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OR/NPOV Text

[edit]

Twice now, Reciprocal insurance expert has inserted a bunch of text. I've reverted it for being entirely OR/unsourced. Text such as:

"For reasons that become clear when one studies the matter, the attorneys in fact who run unincorporated reciprocal interinsurance exchanges do not like the truth that the subscribers own the unincorporated reciprocal interinsurance exchange being explained to the subscribers. Wikipedia, and Mr. Jimmy Wales in particular, have a history of accomodating lawyers who tell them to suppress ownership information about these insurance exchanges. See the history of the Wikipdia article on another unincorporated reciprocal interinsurance exchange, USAA."

...is entirely OR, NPOV and disruptive. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of Ratings Section

[edit]

I believe that all the ratings, whether positive or negative, would fit best into its own "Ratings" section overall. The intent is to put more NPOV ratings in instead of trying to collect them as Accolade or Criticism. I may also make edits for grammar, readability, and updating of any broken references. Please leave a message here if you disagree. --15:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Alyssa Hoffel (talk)

See Also

[edit]

I think this section should be pared down to only to Zurich Financial Services. Since Farmers Insurance is a major part of the Zurich Financial Services company, it warrants being listed in the See Also. The other notes are only somewhat related or have a bias that is not in keeping with NPOV. I'll remove them for now and if anyone has any issues with it, then let's please discuss it here.

--Alyssa Hoffel (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Farmers have a new logo

Reads Like a Commercial

[edit]

Given substantial negative attention on the net (e.g., http://farmersinsurancegroupsucks.com/ ) I would expect some of that to be reflected professionally here...but this page reads like an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.177.44 (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Farmers Insurance Group. 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:

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) 22:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Farmers Insurance Group. 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:

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) 09:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Farmers Insurance Group. 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:

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) 12:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Farmers_Insurance_Group&oldid=1198664357"