Jump to content

Talk:Public Storage/Archives/2015

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


Request edit on 1 February 2015

Hi, There is an inaccurate paragraph on the page for Public Storage, where I work. We are requesting that it be changed.

Current paragraph we are requesting be replaced.

According to an investigation by CBS TV Channel 5, Public Storage employees said they are trained to advise customers that insurance is required, when it isn't actually. Additionally, the station reported that many legitimate insurance claims were not paid.[5][6]

New paragraph we are requesting go in its place.

Public Storage sells insurance at its facilities and requires all customers to insure the items they store, though they can choose to go with existing homeowner’s or renter’s plans depending on their coverage, according to the company’s website. One TV station reported on customers who felt their claims were unfairly denied. [5][6]

The current text says that insurance is not required. It is, and that is verified in the video and on our website. It would also be impossible for the station to know if the claims are legitimate. It is accurate to say that they are disputed.

Thanks for reviewing. Please let me know how to proceed. PSA1972 (talk)PSA1972

Corrected. CorporateM (Talk) 00:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I see that as an unacceptable attempt by the company to downplay serious investigative journalism about problems with its business practices. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Along with @Smartse:, the two of us previously deleted almost the entire prior version of the article. I also responded to a couple Request Edits from Public Storage (see above) and reverted an obvious COI edit.

At the time I had no off-wiki communications with Public Storage and no expectation of ever having a COI. Public Storage reached out to me asking if they could hire me to bring this page up to GA. It is unlikely a volunteer will take an interest in making an encyclopedic work on such a boring page and I was unable to find a better solution (I initially tried to find someone else to do it due to my pre-existing volunteer editing), so I suggested I go ahead and work on it in my usual role as a sponsored editor; presuming there is not a strong community consensus that flipping from volunteer to COI role on the same page is too ethically uncomfortable to over-ride IAR and the benefits of improving articles.

I wanted to disclose everything here and invite further scrutiny of my prior volunteer edits, as well as any other discussion regarding the unusual circumstances. I have also invited comment at COIN. CorporateM (Talk) 18:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I have commented on this matter on my talk page, as requested. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I forget exactly why I watchlisted this article in the first place, but I notice that about half the article is now negative content. Seems a bit unbalanced. Coretheapple (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
@Coretheapple: You probably saw it on my Talk page a while back. I think the critical content could be trimmed quite a bit just by removing excessive source attribution, quoted material and content related to one specific location. I really dislike quotes, except sometimes as placeholders or to resolve source interpretation disputes, and I believe our style guidelines actually discourage it. Also, I think the source is reliable enough not to require so much qualifying source attribution. It reads like "According to KPIX, according to consumers" - we should just go straight to consumers. Here's how I would do it:

According to to a 2010 report by KPIX-TV, a CBS station in San Francisco, many Public Storage customers have filed complaints with the Better Business Bureau regarding issues with insurance policies sold by Public Storage representatives. For example, often "seemingly obvious burglary claims" are denied. An undercover reporter for the station said Public Storage employees have required insurance in order to purchase storage, even though the company was not licensed to sell or discuss insurance products. Jerry Whitfield, a spokesperson for the California Department of Insurance, commented, "When you in fact solicit the purchase of insurance you are doing things that only licensed agents can do".[5] KPIX said that police reports indicated that there had been 22 break-ins at a single Public Storage facility in San Jose, California in the previous two years.[5]

This was the one good source I salvaged from the prior attack piece and I think until the rest of the article is expanded, it will have to remain a substantial focus of the article, as part of the incremental improvement process. CorporateM (Talk) 00:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Yesh, that might have been the reason, I forget. Right now the article is half-negative, which means that either this company's coverage is half-bad or there is a WEIGHT problem. Do you have a position on that? Coretheapple (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
@Coretheapple: I think I know where you're going; if this were a BLP, we would be required to keep the article balanced throughout its development. We would probably trim the criticisms down to a sentence and store the rest of the content on Talk to be re-introduced after the rest of the article is expanded. I don't see why the same principles shouldn't apply to companies, however I also think the community is less sympathetic to corporate article-subjects and there is not necessarily consensus to apply the same principles. @Cullen328: gave me the impression of wanting to safeguard this content somewhat and it might be worthwhile to give him a chance to chime in. CorporateM (Talk) 03:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, the best way to achieve due weight is to expand the article to make it more informative to our readers, based of course on what reliable sources say. This company has a very simple business model, and I believe that the KPIX/CBS investigative report brings forth relevant albeit negative information. Perhaps my expansion can be trimmed a trifle but I prefer the path of adding and expanding other sections of the article in order to achieve proper weight regarding the criticisms. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
As for the assertion that the investigative report dealt with only a single location, that is incorrect. The 22 burglaries and the denial of an insurance claim took place at the Mabury Road location in San Jose, California, but the undercover video reporting took place at another company location, and it was the sales pitch at that second location that led to the criticism of the company from the representative of the California Department of Insurance. And no, I do not believe that the special standards that we apply to BLPs should also apply to corporations or REITs. All our other policies and guidelines including NPOV and due weight should apply, of course. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, I oppose removal of the quotation from the representative of the California Department of Insurance unless we have a more recent reliable, independent source that reports, convincingly, that this company has cleaned up their apparent violations of insurance regulations. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I think Cullen's view is more representative of consensus, that corporate pages with weight issues should merely be expanded. It's unlikely anyone besides a paid editor will write "the rest of the article" so this encourages paid editing and typically leads to indefinitely unfair articles; therefore personally, I will adopt this principle in my volunteer editing going forward. If the company has changed their practices, I don't see this as a good argument for marginalizing what would then become a historical issue. We are not a consumer activist site seeking to reward or punish companies for their behavior. CorporateM (Talk) 14:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree with him too. And just to be clear, I do not believe that corporations should be treated like BLPs. Coretheapple (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft

I've put together a draft for discussion at User:CorporateM/Public Storage. I realize that COI editors proposing drafts can be frustrating or time-consuming to review/discuss/etc. (as @Kvng: has pointed out to me a couple times recently), but articles like this can also only achieve NPOV after someone is willing to write "the rest of the article"; given how extremely boring this company is, it's unlikely any volunteer will ever take a well-rounded interest in it. I'm happy to go through it section by section, discuss it, etc. under WP:NORUSH principles.

In the prior discussion I was not able to say anything with confidence, because I had not yet done the research. So I want to respond to those discussions now.

@Coretheapple: I can now say with confidence the insurance thing is a HUGE undue issue, given that insurance products account for less than 1% of the company's revenues and Public Storage merely sells policies provided by an independent insurance company, which is who the source material says is the one rejecting obvious claims, etc. Also, I didn't find anything in the source material (ie no national level sources about lawsuits, investigations, etc. along these lines) that would suggest its significance is warranted. However, you will notice in the draft the section on their consumer products and services has a pretty negative lean, for other reasons, as was expected, and it says only negative things about the insurance products it sells.

@Cullen328: I think I understand why you felt focusing on corporate structure and the investor audience could be a COI issue, but in this case being one of the largest and longest-running REITs appears to be one of the company's primary claims to notability. It grew into such a large company largely because its projects were funded by real-estate investors, whereas competitors stagnated as interest rates on bank loans increased. I think if you audit the source material, you would find that most profiles on the org prominently discuss its business model, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 22:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi CorporateM. Your draft has the following technical errors:
  • One {{cite news}} template has two "|accessdate=" parameters when only one is allowed:
    • "<ref name="six">": "|accessdate=April 22, 2015" and "|accessdate=April 22, 2015"
  • Change "[[Savings and loan crisis|savings and loan crisis]]" to "[[savings and loan crisis]]"
  • Is it really okay to use one's personal Dropbox account to store a scanned magazine article source referenced by the article?
I'll be happy to copy-paste the finished draft into the article for you. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
@Prhartcom:  Done Due to the articles' copyrights, I was planning on removing the dropbox links as soon as it's in article-space, hence why some cites had two URLs. Had to give any reviewing editor some way of seeing the source material. CorporateM (Talk) 13:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Understood. I also see the two places (at the infobox image and the categories) where tweaks must be made when pasting in the article, which I will take care of. Additional comments:
  • The term REIT is not linked nor does a definition sentence appear until practically the last sentence in the article; perhaps move that closer to the first mention in the article body.
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 16:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • As per the note above, the Corporate structure and operations section may need to be higher in the article, as it introduces many things we need to know as soon as possible.
 Not done Not done for now. I'll move it if you feel strongly, but there is now a very brief definition already in the Lead, Corporate Structure sections are normally near the end, and I think we should be mindful of Cullen's feedback by avoiding an undue focus on it. CorporateM (Talk) 16:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
That's fine; you know best on these matters and with the other changes it's much better now. Prhartcom (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • While reading the lede, I found myself wondering if any Public Storage locations are in my city (when the location of their headquarters base was mentioned, I assumed perhaps they are located only in that area). Perhaps say as soon as possible where throughout the world their customers are using their product.
 Done Of course we can't list all the locations individually, but I just added "international" and "in the US, Canada and Europe to the Lead. CorporateM (Talk) 16:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps mention the amount of Hughes' initial investment, if the sources provide this.
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 16:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Be sure to place a comma after each introductory phrase and to not place a comma just because we might pause at that moment during speech. I don't know about you, but I greatly prefer the Oxford comma. I have gone ahead and made comma changes to the draft.
 Done Marking as done since you have already done so. I have no preferences when it comes to grammar. CorporateM (Talk) 16:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I try to avoid using the word "there", such as "there were more than 1,000 locations"; other phrasing seems to always sounds better. I tried to fix this particular sentence. Search for all occurrences of the word "there" and ask yourself if you like the sentence. (If so, that's fine.)
 Done There are three other instances of "there". All seemed appropriate. CorporateM (Talk) 16:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The word "that" can often be dropped without consequence but I have added it back to four sentences that seemed confusing without it. The sentence "that it held an interest in" may still be confusing.
 Done Removed the "that" you were referring to. Looks like it can be dropped as described. CorporateM (Talk) 16:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
In other words, it's back to what it was. I think the problem may be closing a sentence with the word "in". Prhartcom (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • For the sentence "it had $141 million in quarterly revenues"; I can't tell which of the two companies "it" refers to.
 Done I copyedited and moved things around. Should be more clear now CorporateM (Talk) 17:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "This frustrated institutional investors": Does the "this" refer to the spin-off or the situation before the spin-off? I ask because it's not clear why the spin-off would really frustrate investors but it seems clear it would be a frustrating situation before it took place.
 Done I clarified it. They were frustrated afterwards, because they could no longer invest in the other businesses that were not real-estate businesses. CorporateM (Talk) 17:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Do you think that in the phrase "box, locks, packing and moving supplies business" the sub-phrase "packing and moving" is a single entity, and there therefore should the sentence read "box, locks, and packing and moving supplies business"?
 Done Ew, I hate double "and"s, but meh, ok. You are probably right. CorporateM (Talk) 17:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Ha, yes, me too, but here is a perfect example of why the Oxford comma helps quite a bit. Prhartcom (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "It had been looking for another opportunity ever since." The sentence seems wrong on its own; perhaps it should be connected to the previous sentence somehow.
 Done Didn't seem like it would work out to merge it with the prior sentence, but I did some copyediting to try to make it more clear as a stand-alone sentence. CorporateM (Talk) 17:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure the one-sentence second paragraph of the Recent history section needs to be a separate paragraph.
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 17:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "$8,000 for his belongings": Perhaps "lost belongings" or "sold belongings" to accentuate that they were irretrievable.
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 17:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "obvious insurance claims" probably means "obviously should decide in favor of the policy-holder", but this is not actually said (in a succinct way) and therefore could be confusing.
 Done How's that? CorporateM (Talk) 17:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Prhartcom (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Good, except now it says "insurance" twice and "claims" twice. Prhartcom (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Nice job. Despite your (tongue in cheek) statement, the article is not boring at all! There are no COI issues; the article is completely neutral. I have moved it into the article space. Good luck with the GAN! Prhartcom (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 Done Fixed the double "insurance" and "claims" references. Thanks for giving it a thorough review! CorporateM (Talk) 18:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Good article review

I have started a GA review here. LavaBaron (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The review is complete and the article passed. LavaBaron (talk) 05:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Didn't mean to take out the above comment when I reverted to replace the bad GA template. If you really do want this passed, then please follow the instructions at WP:GANI, which as a brand new GA reviewer you should have done as a matter of course. However, I'm hoping you'll reconsider, and extend the review and even call for a second opinion from a significantly more experienced reviewer: I'm concerned about the speed at which a COI article was nominated and passed as a GA, especially with a novice reviewer, and considering whether a WP:GAR (good article reassessment) should be started for safety's sake. Given the seven-years-old statement passing as current information and the punctuation issues, two quick examples of issues I noted and have mentioned on the reviewer's talk page, it seems clear to me that the GA criteria were not applied as they should have been in the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Repeatedly declaring there are "punctuation issues" is not an example of "punctuation issues." An example of punctuation issues would be formatted, for instance, thusly: In the third sentence of the fourth paragraph, there is not a second comma to break the paranthetical expression "however." I saw no punctuation issues. If you noticed I overlooked some, I encourage you, as a proactive editor, to point them out, not force us to guess at where they might be hiding. As to your other point, I apologize I did not complete the GANI process at the speed you expect. I'm sure jumping in to roll back the process to the beginning, instead of giving me a few more minutes to finish the listing, however, kind-of gums things up even more and strikes me as more than a bit WP:POINTy. LavaBaron (talk) 06:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I wish to add my concerns about a superficial 3-1/2 hour GA review of an article largely written by a paid editor, although I acknowledge that he is among the very best of our paid editors. I believe that this article dramatically overemphasizes this company as a "REIT investment opportunity" for investors and therefore underemphasizes the true nature of its business - renting out storage space to ordinary people who own too much stuff to fit into their homes. It is as if McDonald's should be portrayed in an encyclopedia as a franchise opportunity for rich people with half a million spare bucks to invest, as opposed to a fast food outlet selling burgers, fries and Cokes. I will never agree to such a blatant pro-investor POV. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
First, I acknowledge you will "never agree to such a blatant pro-investor POV." Please note, however, your agreement is not necessary to pass an article to GA status. GA is a peer evaluation, not a consensus building, process. While you're welcome to express your disagreement, there's very little I'll be able to offer you in terms of a panacea. If you just want to lodge a grievance for posterity's sake, I suppose this is as fine a place as any to do it, otherwise I would suggest your concerns might be better received at WP:GAR, where they could, in fact, be actioned upon.
Second, I did not assess the article with a view to either advance or block a POV ("pro-investor" or otherwise). GA criteria do not ask if a socially moral POV is being presented in a nominee article. If or when GA criteria are amended to ask reviewers to determine if an article is presenting a socially moral frame, I will be happy to begin evaluating them on that point. Until then, I will continue judging them on whether or not they are NPOV.
LavaBaron (talk) 07:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
The article as written is not NPOV. It clearly advances the POV of the people who want investors to place their money in Public Storage REITs. Your failure to address that issue is a major problem. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with your perspective that the article is not NPOV. LavaBaron (talk) 07:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually the article on McDonalds only has one paragraph on burgers and shakes. Most of it is on advertising, corporate structure, wages, and legal disputes. Many Featured Articles[1][2] have a similar emphasis on corporate history. It's disappointing that I am Wikipedia's most prolific author of highly ranked pages about extant organizations, and yet I still get this kind of treatment merely because I am compensated for doing so. The irony is that usually it's argued that too much content about products and services is promotional, not the other way around. However, if you are still concerned, we could see about taking it the FA route. I haven't done any FAs yet and I've been eager to get my feet wet with them at some point. CorporateM (Talk) 07:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
People can actually read the article in question, CorporateM and see that what you wrote above is incorrect. The McDonald's article has two full paragraphs about its products, one in the lead and one in the body. There is also a lengthy and detailed section about the types of restaurants describing products as well. Plus, we have a spin-off article International availability of McDonald's products with much more information about their product line worldwide. I continue to maintain that this article places undue weight on the REIT structure, and that the review has been lightweight, and not up to the high standards that you impose yourself as a GA reviewer. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm primarily confused as to why Cullen chose not raise an objection to the REIT acronym at any point in the last year. This has been included in the article for more than a year, during which time he/she has been very active on this article and yet has never bothered to raise an objection nor attempt to edit it. The rapidity with which it's been escalated from zero to 100, to the point that Cullen is now dramatically threatening me on my Talk page with multiple reports in "venues of [his/her] choosing," and treating me to a variety of other belittlement, sort-of seems to explain why there's a GA backlog. Why anyone would want to step into this soap opera is beyond me. LavaBaron (talk) 08:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
In answer to your question, LavaBaron, I have expressed my concerns about this issue several times with CorporateM in recent months, as he well knows. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
There is no reasonable expectation that a GA reviewer should dig through the history of Talk page conversations of everyone who touched an article. Don't put that standard on me. LavaBaron (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There are extensive punctuation issues and inconsistencies in usage throughout the article; this lack of consistency should have been noted and an overall fix requested prior to listing. I've just pointed out several on your talk page, LavaBaron, and as I found one after another after another, it became clear to me that in this area, at least, you are either not qualified to judge, or were working so fast you zoomed right past them—and still couldn't see them after I mentioned that problems existed. CorporateM, as I found out the hard way, FAC requires not merely serviceable prose, but excellent prose. Given the issues I've already found plus some sentences I'd certainly advise rewording more elegantly, I'd strongly advise you not to attempt an FA with this article, since it would surely fail. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
All I can again tell you is I'm sorry you find my contributions so horrible. I found the "issues" you pointed out not to be so substantial they would impair a positive GA. As I've previously said, and you should certainly know, WP:GAR is where reassessments occur. I'm not sure what you're hoping to accomplish in simply continuing to savage my intelligence, unless your goal is to "put me in my place." Anyway, this doesn't seem to be a productive conversation for reasons previously noted (WP:GAR being the correct forum) so I will have to excuse myself from it. Best wishes - LavaBaron (talk) 08:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated it for re-assessment in hopes of addressing everyone's concerns. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 08:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi LavaBaron, I'm not sure I understand the purpose of your edit here that removed some encyclopedic information about the company. I'm afraid I don't understand your edit summary, sorry. Thanks for enlightening me. Prhartcom (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi - the rationale is explained in my GA review. I have no problem seeing it reinserted as it was a secondary concern during review. Thanks.LavaBaron (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
My apologies, I remember reading that now. Yes, I rather think it should be restored to the article. I agree with CorporateM on the first point, the source focuses on PS and not the entire industry, and on the second point, it's a strong source and part of the history of the company. Frankly, it doesn't look good to see two negative bits removed and I believe it adds to the well-roundness of the article. If you have no objection I'll be the one to put them back. Thanks so much for being a GA Reviewer; we need so many more of those and you seem quite capable! May I please ask you to heed the concerns of BlueMoonset, an editor who knows a thing or two about the GA process, for your next review. For example, while it is certainly allowed, I agree it is wise to avoid a quick pass or fail. Cheers! Prhartcom (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
No prob, happy to see it reinserted and have no objections to this point. BlueMoonset's concern was that the article should not receive GA. In the GAR you said it should. Confused as to which of these competing concerns I should heed. BMs other concern was that I was "unqualified" [sic] - you say I'm "quite capable." Also confused which of these I should heed. Please advise. Best -LavaBaron (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for bringing that up and restoring the content Prhartcom. CorporateM (Talk) 19:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I certainly hadn't intended to go against BlueMoonset but I meant I agreed it is good advice to avoid a quick pass or fail if possible. To me, you are qualified to continue to review GA articles (I've seen one or two reviewers while working at the GA Help Desk) and I hope you prove it by picking up another one from the backlog with all speed. (CorporateM is a capable reviewer also; he once reviewed me!) All the best, Prhartcom (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think BlueMoonset minds that you chose to "go against" him/her and agree with me that the article is GA ready. We're all here to improve WP and I'm delighted I was able to pass CorporateM's article to GA status and that the building consensus seems to affirm my judgment. Thank you for your kind words about my work. LavaBaron (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

CorporateM, so is it apparently okay to provide one's own Dropbox account as you are doing and link to it in several "url=" parameters? I just haven't seen that before. (I can't believe I am still hanging around this article!) Prhartcom (talk) 19:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The plan was to drop the URLs as soon as people have had a chance to see the sources. The full-text of the sources are not readily available online and this is the only practical way I could think of to make them accessible to reviewers. CorporateM (Talk) 19:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I see, yes, I remember you telling me that but I hadn't fully realized that the plan is to eventually leave the citation with no URL at all. That's fine. Thanks for answering my question and for providing a readable source for the reviewer(s). Prhartcom (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Requesting Update By Public Storage

Public Storage is requesting minor edits to the first sentence of the article. I would like to remove the first comma and substitute the word "is". I also would like to add the requested citation from the Wall Street Journal. If approved the first sentence would read:

Public Storage is a real estate investment trust (REIT) with headquarters in Glendale, CA. [1]

I also would like to add more color about our locations by adding the paragraph below as the third on the page.

Public Storage has facilities in 40 states, with a large portion located in the coastal states.[2] Because customers prefer to store in their own communities, the company has options in all types of neighborhoods[3] and even in restored historic buildings, such as the first enclosed movie studio, where Charlie Chaplin got his start[4][5] and in one of Henry Ford’s first regional assembly plants on Lake Union in Seattle.[6][7]

Please let me know how you would like me to proceed. Thank you for your time on this!PSA1972 (talk)PSA1972 — Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your feedback. On the first sentence, there has been a "citation needed" for a while for the fact that Public Storage is a real estate investment trust (REIT) with headquarters in Glendale, CA. I was suggesting that a Wall Street Journal Article http://online.wsj.com/articles/public-storage-quarter-profit-rises-on-higher-rents-and-occupancy-1406851553 that verifies those details might work. If this doesn't work, is there another type of citation that might?

With the other info, I did include two references for each point. If you eliminate the Public Storage site and blog, the material still stands. Just throwing that out there.

Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.115.102.146 (talk) 21:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh shoot, the reference to the locations of our facilities is supported by our website and a map page. We would be the original source for number of locations? This is the page that shows the states we're in. http://www.publicstorage.com/storage-facilities.aspx It may be that you still think this is off point. Just trying to build out our page a bit. Thanks!PSA1972 (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)PSA1972

I have added the WSJ source to verify the company's headquarters. If you have an independent source that calls Public Storage an REIT, please feel free to replace the Citation Needed tag with it. Regarding number of locations, a primary source from the company is acceptable for adding this to the infobox. Even if the map does not actually say "50 locations" WP:CALC allows us to use basic arithmetic. In the infobox code, you would just need to add "| locations = 50<ref></ref> and place the citation information between the two "ref" tags. CorporateM (Talk) 22:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://online.wsj.com/articles/public-storage-quarter-profit-rises-on-higher-rents-and-occupancy-1406851553
  2. ^ http://www.publicstorage.com/
  3. ^ http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304644104579193660939955256
  4. ^ http://articles.latimes.com/1987-06-25/news/gl-10426_1_storage-facility
  5. ^ http://blog.publicstorage.com/
  6. ^ http://www.historylink.org/cybertour/pdf/luwalkingtour.pdf
  7. ^ http://blog.publicstorage.com/

Recent edits

The very last paragraph of the "Self-storage and other services" section, presumably added by @Cullen328:, appears to be undue weight. The entire paragraph relies on a single, local source. The text "according to a 2010 report by KPIX-TV, a CBS station in San Francisco" is un-needed. The source is reliable enough to state plainly that consumers have complained and it reads like "according to, according to". According to PS' annual report only about 3% of PS' business is from insurance products, but we have almost as much space devoted to it as the other 90% of their business. PS also isn't itself an insurance company - it merely resells insurance products from a third-party. And I don't think it makes sense to include the number of robberies at just one location - there are more than 2000 Public Storage sites.

The main point of the source appears to be that PS' representatives are not properly licensed to sell insurance and that the insurance company they partner with (like most insurance companies sadly) has a habit of not paying obvious claims. CorporateM (Talk) 15:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree about exercising caution to avoid undue weight. I myself ensured some other negative facts about the company were kept in the article to keep it well-rounded, but this insurance paragraph does seem to drone on. Let's trim it back to the same size as the other negative facts and merge into the previous paragraph. Prhartcom (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
It is surprising to me that it is considered OK for the article to "drone on" about the REIT structure several times, but objections are raised to summarizing investigative journalism by a respected media outlet. My main criticism of the article is that it is strong on information of interest to investors but very weak on information of interest to consumers.
I say "citation needed" for the notion that most insurance companies fail to pay valid claims. That is an extraordinary claim that the insurance industry is a vast criminal conspiracy. Rather, it is this particular company that has chronic security problems and this particular company that chose to do business with a dubious insurance carrier. I will make it one of my ongoing goals as long as I edit Wikipedia to ensure that this well-referenced content is not scrubbed from this article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
You make a good point if the sources truly support this (not just that one article). Now that I understand that your motivation is simply to have a well-rounded article, I agree that both consumer and investor information should be given appropriate focus if the sources are available. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I had a very quick look, and didn't find top quality sources on the issue, but there are several sources out there which seem to indicate that Public Storage have been getting some bad press regarding their insurance ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7]), so some coverage of the matter would be helpful. Exactly how much coverage is an editorial decision based on the amount of coverage in reliable sources, and the quality and amount of those sources. Sometimes there isn't a quick and easy solution, and content needs to be worked at. In contentious issues, such as this, it can take longer than normal, but as long as everyone is civil, and working to the same end: a balanced and fair article, then a solution will be found - and when there are opposing editors looking at an issue, then the end result will usually be fair and balanced. It is actually rare that somebody becomes stubborn and irksome, or a edit fight breaks out, and sanctions need to be used - though those are the incidents that get attention! SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Remove last paragraph of the "Self-storage and other services" section as WP:UNDUE. Also, I had to chuckle slightly at the characterization of KPIX-TV as a "respected media outlet." IIRC this is the same local yokel 11 o'clock news outfit that erroneously "outed" Robin Williams at an AA meeting and produces hard-hitting candy cane stories on things like pranic healing. I agree KPIX meets the requirements of RS, but ... "respected media outlet?" Heh. LavaBaron (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Of course there is still the fact that insurance is such a small part of their business revenue. Perhaps more sources exist showing the consumer side of this company? Just wanted to say thanks again for the objective advice, SilkTork. I believe I will wind down my involvement here, but I have no doubt that CorporateM, who is the one most invested in seeing this article become a high-quality GA, will be able to work with all concerned to achieve this end. Cheers, all. Prhartcom (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose complete removal Like any source the press doesn't always get it right, but in the scope of things, this reporter actually verified things for themselves, rather than just repeating what a special interest group, company, or advocate said. Most of the sources provided by @SilkTork: don't look reliable to me. One of them for example is http://www.publicstorageinsurancelawsuit.com/, but I think if this source was removed, that would be a dam shame; it's a good source.
What I might suggest is taking it one step at-a-time. For example, I propose the following edit: "According to a 2010 report by KPIX-TV, a CBS station in San Francisco, many Public Storage customers have filed complaints with the Better Business Bureau regarding issues with insurance policies sold by Public Storage representatives." I don't think the long-winded attribution is necessary, when the source is reliable enough to just state it as a plain fact. CorporateM (Talk) 19:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Why do you consider it perfectly OK or even required to attribute within the body of the article other content that includes quotes but "long winded" to provide attribution here? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Prhartcom made the suggested edit above here, though it's still too early to tell if the change is stable. I also added another local source about insurance issues and integrated the KPIX source throughout the section, rather than having a single cite at the end.

I also wanted to suggest we trim the reference to the number of burglaries at a specific location: "Police reports confirm that 22 burglaries occurred at that Public Storage location in the previous year"

Typically when we use local sources, caution is exercised to avoid undue emphasis on local issues and we don't cover individual branches of international companies. Public Storage has more than 2000 locations and the number of burglaries at each one may vary greatly. The number of burglaries at this particular location is mentioned at the very bottom of the article and I have not found other RS' that suggest security is a widespread issue. The article is primarily referring to issues with insurance. CorporateM (Talk) 18:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the second paragraph of the "Insurance and damages" section needs to be completely re-written. There are three different television stations that have reported on problems: [8], [9], and [10]. There have been several class action suits, and the Florida 2014 case [11] is quite serious, and ongoing [12].
I suggest something like "Investigations by television stations in Kansas City, San Francisco, and Seattle found ... [common findings].[three footnotes] A 2014 class action lawsuit in Florida [footnote] has been delayed by charges of improper behavior by attorneys on both sides; a law firm defending Public Storage withdrew from the suit. [footnote]"
I'll also note that it's clear that PS's approach to damages is to say "talk to your insurance company". That's true even if PS could be considered at fault - for example, improperly securing a door to a storage unit, having HVAC problems that dump water into a unit, or failing to keep raccoons out of a storage unit - the response is, unfailingly, that this is a matter between the insurance company and the storage unit renter. Further, complaints about insurance almost inevitably seem to be about companies recommended by PS employees. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @John Broughton:! I'll take a look at these sources this week and draft something up for discussion if nobody else jumps on it. CorporateM (Talk) 19:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
@John Broughton: I whipped up something below based on your input. All three articles focus on unpaid burglary claims, but I think this one has the clearest explanation of exactly why claims were denied and why those may be poor reasons to deny claims. Something along these lines might maintain the current weight, while reducing redundancy, over-reliance on a single source, or poor use of quotations, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 17:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I've edited this down a bit, both for neutral language and WP:UNDUE concerns. I think that having these five sources will provide enough emphasis to readers that there may be larger problems - or not.
Also, I'm pulling off the collapsing templates. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
@John Broughton: I made some tweaks below. No objection to the weight, but I dislike language that isn't literal like "on the grounds" and I think including that many burglars replace the locks is necessary to explain why this policy leads to many consumers being unable to obtain reimbursement for legitimate burglaries. CorporateM (Talk) 02:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Many Public Storage customers have filed complaints with the Better Business Bureau regarding insurance policies sold by Public Storage representatives.[1] Local news stations in California,[1] Kansas,[2] and Washington[3] have reported on difficulties consumers had when filing insurance claims with Willis[1] and The New Hampshire Insurance Company.[3] For example, claims have been denied, because the storage unit had an intact lock. As a result the insurance company said there was insufficient evidence of forced entry, though burglars often replace the unit's lock.[3]

An ongoing class action lawsuit alleges Public Storage misleads consumers into thinking that insurance fees are charged at cost, whereas a substantial amount of fees are kept as revenues for company.[4][5]

I oppose this proposed draft language as far too weak. We now have three investigative reports by various TV stations with similar or comparable findings. They emphasize high pressure sales tactics of highly profitable but ineffective insurance policies, a high rate of burglaries, a pattern of denying valid insurance claims, legally dubious justifications for denying claims, refusal to deal with a commmon modus operandi of the burglars, and so on. Why would burglars lock a burglarized unit? Why, to conceal the burglary for weeks or months, of course. One of these reports says that employees often misrepresent burglary rates. It seems clear that the company has no internal policy to report burglary rates accurately to their customers.
So far, we have no reliable, independent sources saying that this company has an excellent reputation for waterproofing its facilities, for outstanding security to prevent burglaries, for marketing excellent insurance policies, and for disclosing local unit burglary rates accurately to consumers. Quite the contrary. On the other hand, we have reliable sources reporting that this is an unusually profitable company, and that its insurance sales unit is even more profitable. All of this information must be presented accurately in this article, so that our readers will have an accurate, well-balanced, well-referenced, NPOV overview of this company. They will know that it is a highly profitable REIT corporation, and they will also know how much (or how little) attention this company places on excellent customer service. Only then will this article be worthy of GA status. And it will therefore be a service to our readers. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
@Cullen328: Unfortunately or not, we're limited to information contained in reliable sources. To move this matter forward, I really think we need at least one of the following two things from you or others: (1) additional, reliable sources that we can use for information [I looked quite a bit; the five sources used in the proposed draft paragraph are all that I found], and/or (2) specific wording, based solely on the reliable sources we have, that you'd like to see, rather than what has been proposed. For example, it looks like you believe that PS has poor customer service. And I certainly tend to agree. But unless we can find a reliable source that makes that general statement, we can't include such a generalization in the article. To do so would be a WP:NOR violation. We are absolutely not allowed to try to "connect the dots"; we're not allowed to infer that an organization does something because there is no evidence to the contrary; we're not allowed to act as a consumer advocate, offering advice to readers (see WP:NOT). All of this can be frustrating, but keeping out subjective information is what makes consensus possible. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
John Broughton, if we summarize and cite these sources accurately, then readers can draw their own conclusions. I do not have time to draft alternate language right now but will work on it in several hours. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I have made copy edits to the proposed language below; feel free to revert any of it. I made the following changes: 1) fixes to punctuation, 2) simplified by removing mention of insurance company names, which are especially not notable as they were not defendants in the class-action suit, 3) more minor textual clarification, and 4) I added a new phrase stating a fact that offsets the insurance suit, putting it in context and making the paragraph more well-rounded. I must say, I am surprised and quite interested to see the article now has several sources citing this facet of the company. I agree with all of John Broughton's comment above. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 06:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I made some copyedits too. It looks pretty similar to the prior proposed version and I don't really see a problem with it. I see that the Squarefoot Storage source has about 7 pages of search results for "Public Storage" and while most of it is on trivial appointments, etc. it would be worthwhile to skim the rest of the source for other topics. I didn't use it before because I didn't think it would be reliable, but it looks ok. I might take a look at it at some point. I still have a hard time seeing 2 paragraphs about insurance, which is 3% of revenue, using local sources and sources like Law360/Squarefeet that cover every sneeze, but it's fine. CorporateM (Talk) 14:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Cullen328, please remind me how exactly will the Proposed language merge with the existing article? I assume we won't lose encyclopedic information. Prhartcom (talk) 03:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Prhartcom, I propose to substitute this language for the existing five sentences starting with "Many Public Storage customers have filed complaints with the Better Business Bureau . . ." I do not think encyclopedic content will be lost.
As for the concerns of CorporateM about the fact that insurance sales are 3% of company revenue, this section is about customer service, security, high undisclosed burglary rates and the quality of insurance services, not the dollar amount of insurance sales. A business is far more than its "financials" and a Wikipedia article is not a prospectus. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I made an additional copy edit just to address the "two paragraph" objection, which is valid. Cullen328, can you please accept my edit? My only intention is to help the structure and pacing of the proposed language within the article (certainly if readers want to know more, they can read the referenced articles). Prhartcom (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed language

Many Public Storage customers have filed complaints with the Better Business Bureau regarding insurance policies sold by Public Storage representatives, after experiencing burglaries of their storage units then having their insurance claims denied.[1] Investigative journalists form local TV news stations in California,[1] Kansas,[2] and Washington[3] have reported on difficulties consumers had when filing insurance claims for burglaries with Willis[1] and The New Hampshire Insurance Company,[3] which are affiliated with Public Storage. For example, claims have been denied because the storage unit had an intact lock; affiliated insurance companies cited insufficient evidence of forced entry, though burglars often replace the unit's lock in an attempt to conceal the burglary.[3] An ongoing class action lawsuit alleges Public Storage misleads consumers into thinking that insurance premiums are charged at cost, whereas a substantial amount of those premiums are retained as profits by Public Storage.[4][5] Sale of these insurance policies is a "high-margin source of revenue" for Public Storage,[4] although revenue from tenant insurance is less than five percent of the company's total revenue.[4]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f Watts, Julie (November 18, 2010). "ConsumerWatch: Insurance Issues At Public Storage". CBS Local Media. Retrieved April 12, 2014.
  2. ^ a b Wagar, Linda (November 28, 2013). "Customers struggle for reimbursements from Public Storage policies". fox4kc.com. Retrieved August 9, 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  3. ^ a b c d e f "How secure is your storage insurance?". KING5. 2014-07-31. Retrieved 2015-08-09.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  4. ^ a b c d Harris, Alexander (May 22, 2014). "Public Storage faces class-action suit over tenant insurance". The SpareFoot Storage Beat. Retrieved August 9, 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  5. ^ a b Simson, Caroline (March 5, 2015). "Public Storage Attys Exit Class Action Following DQ Bid". Law360. Retrieved August 9, 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
I've gone ahead and (with one minor change in the text - in the final sentence, "even if" is now "although") and posted the above to the article. I suggest at this point we return to normal procedures - editing the article directly, or (CorporateM) suggesting specific edits on this page (ideally, in a new section).
As everyone knows, Wikipedia articles are never done, but we've improved this one, and I hope it continues to improve. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Public_Storage/Archives/2015&oldid=1164859239"