Talk:NFU Mutual

Baltipie account

This account looks suspiciously like it is associated with NFU Mutual: it is editing to remove things that the business is uncomfortable with people knowing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sickveils (talk • contribs) 16:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The page is now nakedly an advert

Per the flagging of User:David Gerard at the begining of April 2023 the page is being abused as an advert. Reports of fraud where there are convictions have been deleted. Proven and reported misselling has been removed and a lot of puff from the Daily Mail has been added in.

This is seriously unethical and coordinated; the IP addresses of the cleansing accounts are all in the Warwickshire area close to the business HQ.

Controversy section

The controversy section is being abused by users @Shirtquire and @Visiraces who are putting in uncited information, skewing the facts, and adding in their own opinion. There are aspects of this section that are no doubt warranted, but some of the content that appears is either not relevant, not controversial, or just opinion.

Ver much not - the page is being plagued by BaltiPie who removes properly sourced material and constantly sandpapers the page to present NFU Mutal as purer then the driven snow - when it has well documented problems. This is not an advert

COI tag (November 2022)

Single Purpose Account making major edits removing large amount of information Cahk (talk) 09:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

This has been raised before in the following terms:

1- "I am concerned that recent edits to this page have been done to remove discussion of matters that are considered unpalatable to be publicly discussed by the business and that the page is being edited by acounts with undisclosed COIs."

2- "I have blocked one account probably editing positively for the organisation, but have also reordered the controversies section, and have removed other unsubstantiated content and content. Attempts to directly edit the article in ways that don't conform with Wikipedia's guidelines will inevitably be met with administrative action." Nick Moyes (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Removal of discrimination issues

I'm quite uncomfortable that an account has removed questions of discrimination. It has removed also details of criminal convictions for members of the Mutual and details of group action litigation which is a big exposure along with accounting concerns raised at the AGM 213.107.50.131 (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Off topic discussion of charities etc

There are extensive discussions of third party charities going into biography of directors which seems odd an designed to pad out the article to remove focus on the troubled recent history 213.107.50.131 (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Treasury and Commons criticism of witholding taxpayer-funded grants and BI Litigation

I quite strongly think these are different issues. one is about business ethic with tax money grants. The other is about breaches of contract (alleged) and litigation on a very large and high stakes basis.

BI Section

This may need revision but it is not OK to remove multiple paragraphs containing links to other relevant pages of Wikipedia. It is also worth pointing out the the NFU Mutual is vigorously saying that the judicial challenge it is facing is not one it thinks it is fitting to be tested against and it is therefore appropriate to direct readers to materials which indicate otherwise. This section would not need to be as extensive if the public domain materials the NFUM had created were more balanced. Hicksacids (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

This section is warranted but its far too long, complex and includes POV. It needs editing. BaltiPie (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Subsidiaries

I have seen recent edits fold the subsidiaries into the history section as narrative. This is unhelpful because it takes information which is non-core to history and pads a section out which is overly long with information which ought to be seperated out if it is included so the reader can opt in to consuming it. The minority of people are not coming to be that satisfied that history is satisfied relating the purchase of a printing company or opening and closing tangential business in Africa Visiraces (talk) 07:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The African business is no longer in operation so it belongs in history not Subsidiaries. BaltiPie (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Wholesale deletion of citations

The recent edits have deleted over 30 citations to things like House of Commons Briefing Papers and Court judgements as well as AGM minutes and this seems inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sickveils (talk • contribs) 23:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Vandals on this page

There appears to be a vandal or vandals on this page editing it in a vindictive and negative way, probably with a conflict of interest. Suggest a moderator steps in and cleans it up. 2A02:C7F:7A60:1C00:6411:1531:A22F:9B35 (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

It is not malicious to record legitimate controversy.

And it is well established that people connected with the management of NFU Mutual have been astroturfing this page.

There are a number of issues of legitimate public concern about the culture and management of this enterprise and elite members of the NFUM mamangement are so used to objectionable conduct going unchallenged because of a culture of fear that airing legitimate issues is experienced by them as vindictiveness.

Change your learning perspective and stop expecting to have both an inappropriate culture and spiritual peace: you are what you repeatedly do. Shirtquire (talk) 10:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

There appears to be a lot of negative content on this page without any evidence to back it up. Does a moderator need to step in? 2A02:C7C:6A37:3500:EBE7:7B8F:7B38:5C74 (talk) 09:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

you mean the material about shabby conduct with citations to things like yhe UK Parliament that you just deleted en block?? Shirtquire (talk) 14:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Almost all non-positive content seems to have been wiped wiped away as of the end of November 2020??? And it reads in quite a marketing sort of tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sickveils (talk • contribs) 00:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Inaccurate info from vandals

Inaccurate information keeps reappearing on this page. Some of it is not cited, and is just the POV of the repeat offending vandal who obviously has a COI. Some of it is cited but when you click through to the link it is a controversy for a separate organisation or has been heavily misreported. There is obviously a vandal/vandals using multiple log ins repeatedly publishing inaccuracies on this page. 2A02:C7C:6A37:3500:D013:6E60:BD4F:906A (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

There appears to be multiple accounts making the same bad faith changes on this page with unsubstantiated claims and opinion being added rather than facts. Users @Muggysmote, @Visiraces and @Shirtquire are all making the same changes that are skewed, and when you click on the citation, the information is being reported in a skewed way. I am trying to improve this page, and no doubt some of the controversies are warranted but these three users appear to be one person trying to vandalise the page with incorrect information. BaltiPie (talk) 08:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

SORRY THE ACCOUNTS SHOW YOU LOST 1 BILLION POUNDS what part of this is skewed ? Shirtquire (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

BaltiPie's own talk page has discussion of editing with a COI which hasn't been addressed. Visiraces (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)