Talk:American Family Insurance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Wisconsin. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
If you give this article a rating or change a previous rating, please leave a short summary in the comments to explain the rating and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Main emphasis note that was removed

Whoever the sock was that made the edit I just reverted may be confusing AmFam with AFLAC or some other company. By far and away the core business of AmFam is Private Passenger Auto insurance (Personal Lines) - this makes up well over half of the companies annual revenue as based on the last corporate report (2006). Personal Property (home) is second, and all other lines are a distant third. To the untrained eye - the amount of "life insurance in force" as stated in the corporate reports exceed the revenue anmounts by a factor of 2 - but that is just a benchmark used to compare life insurance companies, and has very little to do with actual revenue gained by selling life insurance policies. I notice that the sock is registered to southern bell in texas - AmFam does not sell any insurance in texas, and it's likely they are confusing AmFam with someone else. Timmccloud 23:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisim Section

Dear 24.209.134.25, it should be noted that this is an encyclopedia, not a collection of blog entries, and the edits you have made in the criticisim section are not supported by anything other than heresay on websites that either a) don't control the postings they make, or b) have a vested interest (insuranceusa.com) in selling competing insurance against American Family. These are not reliable sources per the wikipedia guidelines of Reliable Sources. I'm going to leave them in for now, but don't be surprised if they are removed by myself or someone else at a later date.

As for now, I'm simply marking your edit with a [Template:Unreliablesources] notation. Timmccloud 23:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: this is an encyclopeda - not a web log to vent your frustrations. Criticism is healthy and expected BUT it must conform to WP:NPOV or it will be removed. Timmccloud 13:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok folks, enough is enough. Wikpedai administrators have been warned about your edits. Timmccloud 20:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    • An IP sock that traces back to American Family has removed the criticism section. Since the [Template:Unreliablesources] was not contested for 3 weeks, I will leave the edit as it stands, HOWEVER editing articles from anonomous ip addresses that trace back to the subject of the article is frowned upon, if not bordering on the unethical. Please keep this in mind, future edits may be reverted. Timmccloud 18:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs a logo

The logo got a speedy - will try to upload another one with the proper tags. Timmccloud 13:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, with appropriate tags on the images page [1]. Timmccloud 15:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comment

The edit-warring that has taken place on this article in the past day or two is not acceptable. This article, like all Wikipedia articles, needs to be presented from a neutral point of view, neither promoting nor disparaging the subject company. Please also note that analogous to our biographies of living persons policy, controversial or negative comments must be supported by reliable sources to be included. Please take any disagreements to this talk page for discussion and hopefully arrive at a consensus on what material should be used. If problems persist, an administrator might have to protect this page or block seriously offending users. I hope this will not become necessary. Newyorkbrad 20:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Brad! I have removed all of the material that doesn't meet Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, and left in the criticism that does meet the neutral point of view. I have also corrected all of the redirection links to the correct sites, and I have left in the reliable sources tag for the criticism that seems to have a neutral point of view but is supported only by blog entries. Thanks for your help! Timmccloud 21:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I've taken a look, in response to continuing problems, and a request for additional attention. Discussion of individual experiences is in general not encyclopedic content, and consumer complaint blogs are not RSs. I have left in a general statement and reference to two relatively responsible sites among those given, but I am not sure of them either. If someone can find BBB or the like, it might do better.
While here, I removed some PR puffery about their donations. Again, I'm not sure I removed enough. I repeat NYB's warning that the reinsertion of unsupported negative content will be cause for protection and possibly a block, as will be the reinsertion of advertising. DGG (talk) 01:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)