Talk:USAA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.


Previous discussions:


Contents

[edit] This proposes an acronym page for USAA

USAA is a four-letter acronym that stands for a wide variety of organizations and at least one act of Congress:

  • USAA United States Apnea Association
  • USAA United Scenic Artists of America
  • USAA United Sports Athletic Association
  • USAA United States Achievement Academy
  • USAA United States Air-Table-Hockey Association
  • USAA United States Aircraft Appraiser (Company)
  • USAA United States Albacore Association
  • USAA United States Apple Association
  • USAA United States Armwrestling Association
  • USAA United States Axemen's Association
  • USAA Urban Superintendents Association of America

At mid-night, GMT, 13 September 2006, I will be moving all United Services Automobile Association content to the correct article - which is: United States Automobile Association.

And this article will become the acronym page it is supposed to be.

Bradford Patrick
General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
200 2nd Avenue S. #358
Saint Petersburg, FL 33701-4313
1.727.231.0101
fax:+1.7172580207
email: bpatrick@wikimedia.org

has been advised if this situation and the conduct of LeyteWolfer, below.

Readers are invited to review this report on Robert G. Davis rent-a-shills at Wikipedia.

I have no love for USAA one way or the other, but as I've said time, and time, and time again, I don't see the point of adding an acronym page unless Wiki has an article on one or more of the other USAA entities you mentioned above. If Wiki has them, or hell even if you create them, then I'd gladly join your push for the acronym page. As for Mr. Bradford Patrick, if he has any weight or opinion on the USAA acronym discussion, then he should post here, otherwise anything you post claiming Mr. Bradford Patrick said is just Hearsay. --Brownings 12:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Your long list of red links above does nothing to prove your point. The page should remain as is until other salient articles are created. Agree with Brownings above.--Looper5920 13:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


I think \a see also at the top is more appropriate--Looper5920 20:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Looper since this USAA is a more well-known company. My only question is, do we add a "See Also" at the top for companies that don't even have Wiki articles? --Brownings 20:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Additional info - few of the millions of customers no that USAA is united services auto association. They just call it USAA. 2. USAA is the offical and legal business name. 3. USAA has been a constant, while the words have changed over the years - example: long ago it was United Services Army Association HillCountryGrump

Actually, while USAA is used as a trademark, the official business name (part of which is required by Texas law) is United Services Automobile Association (A Reciprocal Interinsurance Exchange). If you are a member, you can see this on the top of the declarations page of any policy. Also, isn't USAA a four letter acronym? Grin. Swizzlez 20:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
A 'vandal' is trying to make a disambiguation page. I propose redirecting this page to the company's current full name, and add a disambiguation link to it. What do you think? (I don't want to do it directly since it seems to be controversial) -- lucasbfr talk 15:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
If Wiki has articles for another or all the other uses of USAA, then I say create the disbiguation page. Until then leave this USAA as the USAA. --Brownings 15:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Brownings and Looper5920. I'd prefer a disambig line at the top; a disambig page would be okay too; but neither is needed until we have information on any of the other organizations. --Allen 15:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Mmm you're entirely right. -- lucasbfr talk 01:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Why is the old conversation still here?

Can someone please explain to me why this particular part of the discussion did not get archived, but the response to it most certainly did? I have a feeling one of banned user Robertjkoenig's sockpuppets archived the discussion to present the current discussion the way he wanted. From my standpoint, any edit to any wiki page or talk page that one of his sockpuppets makes should be deleted as though it never existed, as he clearly has a soapbox-style agenda, whereas everyone else who has toyed with this page, while they may have disagreements, seems to have a factual encylopedic reference as a goal. If leaving the residual part of the archived discussion is allowed, then all the conversations subsequent to it should, in my opinion, be left on the talk page.

By the way, RJK (sockpuppet-man), if you are allowed to continue to post here (even though you've been banned), it is not cool to edit your own entry as a response to someone else's subsequent entry, rather, continue it as a discussion below the response to your points. That way anyone who hasn't seen the start of the discussion can follow it like a regular conversation. Thanks. --Swizzlez 18:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Swizzlez: you're an obsessed old man who should be thinking about Nicole Smith and not some sock-puppet. You might consider "putting a sock in it" or "putting a sock on it" depending on what your mood is. Now - what text do you feel was archived infairly? Why don't you do get it and move it back up onto this page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.154.31.131 (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC).

The personal attacks on this and other users stop now. If we get one more, I will semi-protect this page> Thanks, Gwernol 19:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

As promised, this page is now semi-protected due to continued personal attacks by the banned user Robert Koenig. Gwernol 19:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why all the fuss behind the disambig requests above

The reason Robert J Koenig is doing this is clearly related to the facts of the case (linked well below this post, in fact, i think it's in one of the archives) involving his use of a website that used the acronym, USAA. In it, the administrative judge overseeing the right of a person to use a certain domain name decided that since USAA was a very well known acronym used by United Servies Automobile Association, they had the right to any domain name that was both similiar and related to that organization. Thus, RJK was prohibited from using the domain name "fixusaa.com", and now he is on yet another quixotic diversion to build up evidence that USAA actually refers to a number of other, very obscure acronyms. I find it telling that he created the link page called "the united states arbitration act" (which actually doesn't exist, as it's called the "Federal Arbitration Act") as an attempt to show that USAA actually refers to some other established and well-known concept.

I believe he thinks that if he can show that USAA is an acronym that refers to a wide variety of well known concepts or organizations, he can then take up his cause to establish some "alternative" usaa website to continue his bizzare quest at attacking USAA. Unfortunately for him, however, 1)all the concepts or organizations he proposes as alternatives to the well-known "USAA" are obscure or don't even exist and 2) I doubt establishing this on Wikipedia will ever affect any kind of judgement for or against him in the future in terms of the use of the acronym USAA in any website.

THEREFORE, I don't think that his proposed changes should be enacted until there is some established page about some other organization or concept using the acronym USAA which was not written or developed by Robert J Koenig, usaaindexer, usaaeditor or any of his other sockpuppets.

Swizzlez 03:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd move this to the bottom; most editors look to the latest sections first. But good detective work! I'd definitely oppose any such move now.--Mmx1 03:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
how bizzare, i always look at the top. if you want to move it down that's fine.Swizzlez 03:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
If it's stuck under another section (and lord knows this page is a mess), ppl tend to gloss over it. Promoting this to top level section and putting it at the bottom. --Mmx1 03:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Swizzlez's comments regarding allegedly dishonest attempts to create the appearance that USAA is a common name. The simple fact that Koenig has not even gone to the trouble of writing articles for the above named organizations (even the real ones) indicates to me, and any credible legal authority, that Koenig is only interested in providing a veneer of use for the term 'USAA.' It can definitely be successfully argued that the majority of people coming to read a USAA article expect to see one on the banking and insurance corporation, and that very few people (possibly numbering only Koenig's lawyer) would be coming to see how many organizations (again real and false) share the initials USAA. For the record, too, Koenig's attempts to frighten the editors' community at Wikipedia speak of his own (feeble) attempts at censorship, which he claims to be suffering through himself. Koenig is a disingenious user of Wikipedia, in my opinion, and any legal authority responding to future claims against USAA would be wise to triple-check any so-called 'facts' that come from Koenig, if evidence of his character here provides any insight. There is usually an iceberg that he is attempting to hide under the water. LeyteWolfer 13:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, he did go to the trouble of writing articles for two of them, the United States Achievement Academy and United States Air-Table-Hockey Association. Interestingly, he just cut and paste from the Achievement Academy's website for both entries; when it was pointed out that cutting and pasting was against the rules, he then made a half-hearted attempt at an entry for the Achievement Academy which was found to be lacking any useful information for wikipedia, so both entries were removed. It appears that since it was obvious that RJK is the man behind the latest entries, his usernames were determined to be sockpuppets and the Wiki ban on RJK was extended to his most recent socks. I guess we have a lot of IP address sockpuppets to look forward to; I plan on sticking the sockpuppet label on any IP address talk page if the contribution is clearly linked to RJK. Swizzlez 19:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
"Actually, he did go to the trouble of writing articles for two of them, the United States Achievement Academy and United States Air-Table-Hockey Association. Interestingly, he just cut and paste from the Achievement Academy's website for both entries..."
That's cute! Well, while I admit the error that Koenig ignored all the previous associations (in regards to writing them), it does show how he uses the veneer of the truth to obfuscate his real intentions. Someone acting from a point of poor faith is accusing others of the same tactics. Normally, that would be 'kettle calling the pot black,' but in this case its simply Koenig not judging himself with the same methods he applies to others. Good job, Swizzlez. LeyteWolfer 21:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
While I ordinarily wouldn't link to any of his pages or even discuss it here, since he's taken up so much time vandalising the entry I figured that since I found some basis for RJK's quest, I thought I would share with anyone else who is interested. This page, part of RJK's blog, I believe, explains the impetus for RJK's over-a-decade long crusade against USAA. I personally can't be sure whether his allegations on that page are true (based on the rest of his behavior, anything that he says seems dubious), but essentially he is upset that USAA overpaid a claim of his by $35 and he feels that was part of a concerted effort to cause his rates to increase so that USAA could recoup the amount of the claim. The total amount of the claim? $510. See for yourself on his page. Because of this, he has set up at least one website which he was forced to give up [1] and tries to use a variety of other websites to rail against USAA, believing that anyone involved in any way with USAA and who happens to disagree with him is dishonorable or worse. However, he doesn't seem to be able to substantiate any of his claims against USAA, save for the fact that they get complained about and sued just like any other large business in the US. Everything else he seems to bring up is either related to unsettled court cases or unsubstantiated rumors, neither of which seem relevant as proper Wikipedic sources.
If any editor of Wiki thinks that this entry should be removed, feel free, but I think it's at least somewhat relevant to explain why one banned poster (and all of his sockpuppets) has an agenda and why any of his entries, especially on any archived talk pages, should be taken with a grain of salt. In the spirit of equality, I will say that I am a member of USAA, I probably stand to gain an infinitesmal amount of extra return of profit should this article influence more people to join, but, hopefully I've done the best I can at describing the organization with a balanced perspective instead of with such a vitriolic, irrational agenda advanced by someone who seems to be unable to move on. Now for me....back to something better...halftime's over...FOOTBALL!
--Swizzlez 23:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
That may be an interesting read, but since Robert Koenig has gone so much effort to pull the wool over his eyes, I'd have to doubt 90% of any facts presented by him, with his perspective. Scratch that: just facts presented by him. He's gone to so many lengths to convince a future court that there are many people railing about the 'injustices of 10 extra dollars charged against Robert Koenig' that you can't even assume trust in someone who posts in support of him. But, doing the research was a sign of a good editor. Thanks, Siwzz. (This is the part where a sockpupput will now call me names.)LeyteWolfer 00:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


My team totally cr%&*)ped out, so I quit watching and did some more research. And now I remember, from reading posts a long time ago about (probably by) Koenig, his biggest complaint was his claimed 1989 pipe burst which he claims destroyed his New York City apartment, and USAA's refusal to pay for said damage. It's detailed here (although because he includes snippets of everything, it's hard to say who was right and who was wrong in the matter) [2]. This is now conjecture and speculation (which is why it's on the talk page), but my guess is he went to court and lost, and has been on a crusade ever since.
He also has a number of sections of articles and papers at [3], [4], the most telling being this letter[5], in which he rambles about why USAA is so bad, and then states (plainly), "I want to see USAA dissolved." He seems to want to help the attorneys in the true v. usaa case, however, I read through the case; while I'm not a lawyer it appears frivolous to me and seems like it will likely be thrown out. Even if it is for some reason settled, I would imagine the only change would be an increase in the reserves allocated to SSAs, and not the bleeding to death of USAA as desired (see the letter) by RJK. It also brings me to my next point, which is: you have to seriously wonder about the motives of a man who wants to end the existence of a business which serves the majority of the members of the active duty military. Assuming that there is an infinitismally small chance that that would actually happen in my lifetime, and assuming it happens, yes, we could all get insurance and financial services elsewhere, but is Koenig's revenge, even if justified, worth the time, money, grief and frustration it would cause military members & their families, not to mention the over 20,000 employees that would be out of jobs? Talk about ego.
I also found a rough draft of a letter [6] he has written to the division of corporations of Delaware. It explains his obsession with the fact that USAA is not incorporated, and his obsession with the use of the phrase "URIE". Apparently, in Delaware, only "legal persons" may own shares in a corporation. According to RJK's logic (wishful thinking?), a reciprocal is not a legal person and thus cannot own USAA Capital Corporation or any of its other Delaware subsidiaries, and thus all of USAA's members would technically be entitled to the shares of USAA Capital Corporation and any other Delaware subsidiaries of USAA. My guess is that that has already been well reviewed by USAA's lawyers, a reciprocal probably is a legal person in Delaware and RJK is stretching.
Last, two more things. 1) I wouldn't be surprised if the links die soon, as RJK has not made the information he has posted on the internet easy to find and that may be for a reason. 2) On a personal note, thanks RJK; this has been kind of a fun little logic puzzle for me. It's times like these that I wonder why I didn't go to law school, but I think it's because I didn't want to end up a bitter old man. I see through your reasoning and your motives, and it seems to indicate that instead of what seems superficially to be the irrational crusade of someone who may not be well is actually the futile effort of a man so hell-bent on revenge he's lost touch with reality. Perhaps you should take up yoga? If I were a betting man, I'd bet on USAA outliving you, me, and everyone else on the planet. Is spending almost 20 years attempting to destroy USAA (and not getting very far) really all that fulfilling? Only you know; as for me, I'm gonna go drink some beer and watch the rest of today's football....
--Swizzlez 02:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page Lock

Is there anyone watching this page that can lock it from edits by IP addresses? I think the USAA article has seen enough abuse lately. --Brownings 00:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the latest IP address under Wikipedia's three revert rules policy. For now the POV-pushing appears to have stopped. If it starts up again I am willing to protect the page. Good luck, Gwernol 00:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
While I'm all for leaving the page open (I'd like someone else to come along and help edit/organize it), and I'd like to add some kind of "history" section, I'd be for a temporary protection for awhile. I'm not sure it would do much good because as soon as it is unprotected a sockpuppet of the same old vandal is going to start up with the same routine. Any way to keep unregistered users from editing while allowing those who are registered the privilege of fixing it up? That may be worth a shot if its possible. Swizzlez 00:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
It is possible, but given the vandalism has stopped since the latest IP was blocked (and that IP can't create new accounts during the block period) it looks like you have 24 hours to fix up the article. If another IP or new users starts vandalizing I will protect. In the meantime please keep up the constructive edits, and feel free to ping me on my talk page if issues arise. Thanks, Gwernol 02:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Due to continued vandalism and WP:POV-pushing by well known parties, this article is now under semi-protection. Gwernol 14:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Essential Business Structure

Isn't this language not perhaps a more accurate way to lead off the article on United Services Automobile Association. We are, after all, talking about encyclopaedic accuracy - not just about the way Gwernol wants to shade things. Gwernol, who is very well informed and on the USAA payroll is forgiven for his bias: but not forgiven for his suppression of other people's thoughts - no matter how inconvenient to Gwernol and his "success fee" for suppressing my thoughts are.

United Services Automobile Association (USAA) is an unincorporated reciprocal interinsurance exchange which has grown to be about the same size as many Fortune 500 financial services corporations. By charter, USAA is restricted to serving military members and their families. And - no matter how inconvenient this truth is to all concerned - it is not a corporation and USAA members are not protected by the standard corporate umbrella. In fact (sorry Gwernol), the corporate veil is pierced at USAA before you even get under way: there isn't even a corporation. It is no secret that many very wealthy ex-military people have been advised by their lawyers to stay away from USAA as the liability shield is a flimsy one supplied only by the Texas Department of Insurance. Depending on the TDI to stand behind you is like asking a rogue wave to leave you alone in a storm. If the TDI's URIE limited liability veil at USAA were pierced, say by an allegation that a member knew Robert G. Davis was mis-behaving: then it might be possible for an adverse party to get at the assets of a deep-pocket USAA member. Gwernol, this is a discussion page, ok? Cool your jets for a second.

Now, Gwernol, below, wants to minimize the notion of "unincorporated". The problem here is that the principal over-riding and most important feature of USAA is that it is "unincorporated". Reciprocal Interinsurance Exchanges are definitionally "unincorporated". Each of the 2.2 million members of USAA is personally on the line for all the claims of all the other members. This is not trivial, Gwernol's hardly indepedent wriggling not withstanding. (I love the image of Gwernol, the worm, writhing as I am about to run the hook through him just prior to "going fishing".) Anyway (sorryGwernol), a mutual insurance compony is a indeed a corporation. No policyholder is personally on the hook for the claims of the other policyholders. Now - how should this fact be documented? I'd like to start with the first page of the United Services Annual Report for 2005. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Voltaire Redux (talk • contribs) .

First, please provide a reliable source that shows this is true. Then we can discuss whether it is an important enough fact to include in the lead paragraph of the article. Thanks, Gwernol 14:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
While I'm pretty sure we've been graced with the presence of yet another sockpuppet, it is correct that USAA is a reciprocal interinsurance exchange. All the policies I get from them say so in the first line under "United Services Automobile Association". Since I'm not particularly interested in reinforcing this truth (i.e., I really don't care), I don't feel the need to back it up with a link, Mr. Voltaire Redux can do that himself (it should be quite easy to do). I can however refer anyone to the CEO letter contained in USAA's Annual Report which does state, "USAA is not a publicly traded company, so we don’t answer to stockholders — we answer to you."
Now then, the issue becomes whether this fact is important enough to list in the first paragraph of the entry; it is already listed under the insurance heading of the Lines of Business section which is very high up in the article, I know that I myself am prone to wordiness and even I think that the intro sentence as proposed by VR is out of control.
By the way, I actually did search the internet for "Unincorporated Reciprocal Interinsurance Exchange" and can find no link besides the entry already established on Wiki (URIE) by one of RJK's sockpuppets (Zorro Redux) where the word unincorporated is used, save for answers.com entries (that mirror Wikipedia), and one other that looks remarkably like it was written by Robert J Koenig. It is true that it is not a corporation. However, the definition of Reciprocal Interinsurance Exchange would indicate that it is not a corporation, and thus adding unincorporated to the phrase is redundant. Thus, I am going to drop the word unincorporated from the entire entry. --Swizzlez 16:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unarchived

I have unarchived relevant portions of the discussion, including the evidence of RJK's motivations for the disambig page and dicusssion of the "URIE" wording. --Mmx1 19:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Holy cow, it is still just as messy. I say since the talk page is now semi-protected, and almost everything on it is there because of RJK and his sockpuppets, and our taking the bait and responding to it, why not just archive the whole thing now and start off with yet another blank talk page? --Swizzlez 19:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
His socks keep ducking back in (and editing the archive); and I'd like people coming upon the talk page to have some inkling of the situation without having to dig into the archives. I don't think this situation is wholly resolved yet; there was another sock today: User_talk:True_to_usaa. Apparently unable to edit this talk page, he started discussing it on archives 9 and 10 and in the articlespace (which was quickly deleted).--Mmx1 19:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Gotcha. you think the archives should be protected too?--Swizzlez 20:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I've indef blocked the latest sockpuppet. I'm now going to go in and semi-protect the talk page archives. Gwernol 20:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet report

After RJK used my user page to continue his soapbox (and, funnily enough, accused me of being a sockpuppet), I initiated a suspected sockpuppet report. Not sure if it will do any good but I figure in the future when a whole new crop of people are updating this page and getting slammed by a RJK puppet, they can at least have something to refer to in the suspected sockpuppet archive. Please feel free to make any comments in the applicable section of the page. Swizzlez 22:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RJK is back

Looks like RJK is back, although his wording is milder, the obsessive fascination with security at USAA (the bank is still located on the same campus as the rest of USAA, by the way, and many financial services companies do have security; additionally, after Sept 11, USAA's security increased, which seems appropriate given the membership/clientele. The Citi campus in San Antonio is similar. The credit card bank has been in existence for about the same time period as USAA FSB (see the FDIC website if you don't believe me) and I believe it was set up in Nevada due to more favorable credit legislation there as compared to Texas. I don't really think it's relevant to mention unless it is mentioned in a manner consistent with NPOV, such as "the USAA Savings Bank issues all of USAA's credit cards and is located in Las Vegas, NV." I think mentioning the litigation is useless, every large financial services institution has litigation, it is not illustrative of anything at USAA and seems to simply expand the article beyond what needs to be there. For all these reasons, I reverted all of the likely sockpuppet's changes. Swizzlez 20:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Good call. The average roaming editor doesn't swoop in and add something like that...not in light of the history of Robert Koenig's involvement with this encyclopedia article. LeyteWolfer 21:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for latest revert

Reverted because 1) I have included a link which substantiates USAA's historic eligibility requirements (see the bottom of the article). If anyone thinks it should be taken out of the 'target market' section I think that's fine, but if so it should probably be moved to the 'history' section and not summarily dumped. Similarly, there are articles on the internet about USAA's change in eligibililty from only military officers to enlisted; in addition, the page I linked to reflects some of the facts of the transtion/"roll-out" which offered eligibility to enlisted personnel while curtailing the right of former military officers to join USAA if they hadn't done so while on active duty. Swizzlez 17:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question - please

What exactly is this discussion page all about? It seems to me to be one of the most fully developed examples of a completely specious Chewbacca Defense I have ever seen. Is this article about United Services Automobile Association or is it about some guy (I presume he is a guy, unless it is sort of George Elliott "she") named Robert J. Koenig. Clearly the acronym USAA is in common use by several other organizations, most notably:

United States Apnea Association

and

Urban Superintendents Association of America.

The latter even has a website with an almost identical name: usaa.org vs usaa.com.

And the United States Apnea Association has a wikipedia page.

How can it possibly be that even the most loyal United Services Automobile Association fan could argue against the clear and immediate need for a disambiguation page. And what is all this stuff about this Koenig guy?

Whether or not the other USAAs have wikipedia pages is quite irrelevant: all that matters is that the word sequence USAA is insufficiently distinctive for USAA to "own it" on Wikipedia.

May we please now proceed to the establishment of a disambiguation page for USAA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Urban supers (talk • contribs) .

On Wikipedia a disambiguation page is a technical mechanism to disambiguate between multiple Wikipedia articles. I'm afraid you are incorrect when you state that "Whether or not the other USAAs have wikipedia pages is quite irrelevant". A disambiguation page is ONLY neeeded when there are Wikipedia articles to distinguish between. Gwernol 11:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, the sockpuppet is back. It seems obvious that he copied the United States Apnea Association's "About" page from their website [7] and pasted it into United States Apnea Association as a new wikipedia entry. Does Mr. Koenig really believe that we don't see through his pathetic attempt at pretending to be someone else writing about himself? How ridiculous. Seems like this talk page might unfortunately need to be protected again.
By the way, Mr. Koenig, USAA does not own this entry, Wikipedia does, and the users of Wikipedia edit it as we see fit. In case you haven't noticed in the many months that you've tried to hijack the entry for your own purposes, this is a collaborative effort and, unfortunately for you, the community of users of Wikipedia does not agree with your edits and has continually modified and/or rejected them accordingly. I suspect that we all will continue to do so. Good day. Swizzlez 17:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Inaccuracy

Hi, I'm a former employee of USAA (left to begin my PhD program which is to say I left amicably and was not terminated and have no ax to grind.) I worked there quite a while, it is a great company as companies go. Its not perfect, but nobody is. Anyway, the following text is in the SSA entry:

the rest is distributed to each member's SSA using a formula that takes into account the member's current SSA balance as well as the amount of premium the member paid in that year.

That is not factual, it is a little depressing that I still have most of IOP (Intelligent Online Proceedures--a intra-association resource that contains all of the proceedures (I think they call them guidelines now) for the CoSA. Its you're bible for whatever company or department you're in.) memorized but the amount distributed to a member's SSA is dependant on only the amount of premium they paid that year, their current SSA balance is not a variable. For example, last year I think ~14% of the premium paid was assigned to each members SSA and at the end of the year ~5% of the entire balance was sent back to the member. Additionally, it is not mentioned but USAA now restricts essentially all of the business it does to only those eligible for P&C policies (mil and ex-dependants). Which is to say that you can't get banking, or investments unless you're eligible or already had them. I'm not sure the wisdom of that move, but it was probably popular with the members -- people like the idea of exclusivity. Most representatives on the insurance side are actually in fact insurance agents, as they have to be licensed insurance agents to issue policies in most states. So technically the phrase that they don't sell through agents is false -- they do but only because they have to. No comissions, just like other directs (progressive, geico).

Anyway, don't have a user ID so I can't edit -- anyone want to make some of those changes? 24.219.97.39 04:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Welcome! Get a user ID - it's easy, no spam is generated, and it actually provides a little more anonymity than you would have without one. Thanks for the input. Swizzlez 15:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "The USAA building is said to be the largest office building in the country."

Isn't the pentagon the largest office building in the country? Not An IP 01:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Swizzlez 15:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

USAA's complex is bigger by usable office square footage, the pentagon is larger by size.

[edit] Reason for Revert

User:Hillcountrygrump, you continue to edit the article as though it is a resource for people to click through and figure out whether they are eligible for USAA services, much like it's some kind of advertisement for USAA. The article could already use some editing, but instead of making things clearer, you REMOVE information that is difficult to find elsewhere (such as regarding the business structure of USAA) and add in information that is EASY to determine elsewhere (such as just going to USAA's homepage and plugging your information into the eligibility forms). Once again, (and I say this holding USAA in the highest esteem): THIS IS NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR USAA. IT IS NOT A WAY TO FUNNEL BUSINESS TO USAA. IT IS NOT A CHEERLEADING SITE FOR USAA. It is an encyclopedic reference and I daresay should be used to summarize deep background information that can't easily be found elsewhere on the internet as a priority, with other goals (such as summarizing information easily found on or determined from the USAA website and posting it here) much lower on the list.

Also, if you insist on continuing to post eligibility requirements, you're gonna have to back them up with a citation. I have never heard that there was a one-year time limit from the day one leaves their parent's home to establish a USAA policy, and, in light of their recent national media campaign to capture the business of people who may not even realize they are eligible for USAA's services, I think that, in fact, there is not a time limit for adult children of USAA members to establish eligibility. However, since there's no source cited to back up your information, I can't really tell.

Swizzlez 15:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TIME LIMIT on eligibility

I don't know of a published statement on eligibility, but ask any service representative and they will explain that there is a time limit. So, call and ask a sevice representative before deleting it!!!

I think it is hard rule to explain. When you experience any one of many events like seperating from the military or retiring from the military, or moving out of your parents home (permanantly - not while off at college), or getting divored from someone that is a member, or any other of many events you have the rest of that year, then the whole next year to get a P&C product.

If you don't get a P&C product in that time frame, you lose your chance to get USAA services. You also lose it for your decendants. Now tell me - what other companys do that? It is unique or extremely rate and worthy of description WITHOUT being labeled advertizing.

About advertizing... First, since advertizing includes brand management any and every interaction a company has with a potential customer is considered by some business experts to be advertizing - IBM called those interactions "A MOMENT OF TRUTH". That means that this "ENCYCLOPEDIA" is advertizing for many companys whether people like it or not.

Second, I don't know why USAA has the time limit, but they do. It is a fact. Call and ask a rep. BUT, it is hardly a SELLING POINT. It is not a feature. It is not a price statement. It is not comparison to competitors in any way.

Third, you seem to think it is important to explain that USAA is a direct company instead of Agent based. That, dear Swizz, is called a sales distribution model by LOMA (highly recognized insurance professional association - www.loma.org). Business 101 - Sales and marketing and advertizing all overlap right? Should the section on direct versus agent distribution model be pulled since it is advertizing?

MY POINT - Name other companies that say "we just started the count down on your ability to do business with us".

MY CHALLENGE TO YOU - Your defense of having competitor data on the USAA entry was that people need to know about other providers (*** now that sounds like something a USAA competitor would say ***).

But, you don't think that those same consumers that are eligible to do business with USAA (almost always the best value and usually the cheapest insurance) need to know that their time to do business with USAA is limited. *** That sounds like something a competitor would want to hide***.

Hillcountrygrump 13:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I was an employee at USAA. I am no longer working there, I posted above about some inaccuracies. This is also inaccurate. There is no time limit on establishing a policy if you're a ex-dependant of a USAA member. In some cases there can be a discount available on an ex-dependant's auto policy (Safe Driver Discount) which lowers the premium of a child's auto policy if they had a good driving record on their parents auto policy. There is a time limit for this discount as the intention was to ensure that there is no period where the kid could go crazy after leaving parents policy but prior to establishing their own, but I don't remember what it is. There is a time limit on establishing your eligibility if you're in the military. You have to get your first P&C product (auto, renters, home, etc) within 2 years of your retirement/seperation otherwise you will not be eligible. 24.219.97.39 02:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for removing competition section

Ok. Fine. I get it. You are the undisputed expert and your opinion is beyond question. Also, mass deletes are only acceptable when you do it. Right?

THIS IS NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR GEICO OR ANY OTHER ENTITY. IT IS NOT A WAY TO FUNNEL BUUSINESS TO ANY ENTITY. IT IS NOT A CHEERLEADING SITE FOR ANY COMPANY. If you want to explain to people what their options are then create a separate entry for the various industries and list all the companies you want.

This ENTRY MUST BE ABOUT USAA ONLY! It is not titled USAA AND OTHER COMPANIES.

207.155.4.175 04:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Like I said many times before, many other entries cite competition, usually not it its own dedicated section about competition, but throughout the entry. For example, if you read about American Express, Mastercard and Visa will be mentioned. I would suggest that you pick a series of about 10 large businesses at random and read their Wiki entries. My guess it that you will likely find at least half of them mention competition in some way. I'm sorry you feel that keeping the entry from being purely about USAA is somehow rude or incorrect, but I'm afraid you're in the minority. I think it would be better if somehow the information was merged into the rest of the article, but I've tried that before as well and you didn't like it. Swizzlez 15:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google search: USAA + Wikipedia

Google search: USAA + Wikipedia:

--A. B. (talk) 10:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Plus another interesting finding using Wikipedia's own search function:
--A. B. (talk) 10:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable USAA Members

How about a section on Notable USAA Members (from USAA Magazine back cover)

(I am missing 4 issues 2003-6) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.24.175.36 (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

  • Not sure what issue it was in, but I remember Tony Hawk being on the back cover once. Swizzlez 21:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/s/a/Talk%7EUSAA_83ef.html"