Talk:Farmers Insurance Group

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Farmers Insurance saved my life!

Come on, with a little civility, we can have a decent article. If you want to post legitimate criticism, fire away, but save the editorializing and rumor-mongering for your gripe sites and personal blogs... I did not remove the entire criticism section, only the paragraph lifted word for word from the gripe site. Our friend M4J did that for us.Buzzards39 01:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


I apologize for removing your paragraph but your response was not ridiculous enough. If a few people want to be childish I can play along. Your paragraph was very well articulated and right on. It was the cute summary of Farmers that got my attention; I didn’t realize you were the only one trying to be civil.

I used to think Wikipedia was a useful tool… Until I read this. I don’t know who published this cute article on Farmers and I don’t care. Now that I know this is the MySpace of encyclopedias I will treat it that way.

The fact remains that thousands of people consult Wikipedia for unbiased, objective information. In the last several weeks, a straightforward entry on an insurance company has been hijacked by the person who runs a gripe site against Farmers. I am doing him the courtesy of leaving in specific examples that he cites, but a comment such as "Worst Insurance Company in the USA", lifted word for word. from his site, is subjective at best. The other goblin is Paul Drockton, AKA "Mormons 4 Justice", a formers Farmers manager who has been on a jihad against all things Farmers the past several months over a dispute dating back to 2002. He has posted on several forums and has a web blog. His main issues seem to be supposed religious discrimination against himself and disagreements with his congressman, who he blames for his story not getting any traction.Buzzards39 05:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)71.199.61.26 22:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If you think he was a former farmers manager I have some ocean front property for sale in Arizona. This guy is from Arlington TX. The same city and state I am live in today. Go to his NEW domain www.farmersinsurancesucks.com formally www.boycottfarmersinsurance.com. Per his website: he received a cease and desist order so he changed his domain to www.farmersinsurancesucks.com. He thinks that there is a conspiracy involving farmers insurance and his claim. The reality is that he needs a job. As far as fair and unbiased I don’t think that’s possible. I agree with you, thousands of people depend on this site for reliable information. I was one of them. Then I see this article which I know to be completely false. You said it yourself he hijacked this article. I am not a regular wikipedia editor, however I do know this article is not biased. What are you suggesting that I do? Let someone use wikipedia as t heirtool of misinformation and slander. I feel that I was pretty liberal to leave half of the article that is in red. I only removed what I know to be false.

What I cannot stand are people who abuse the anonymity of e-commerce. It is people like him who ruin it for everyone because they can hide behind a PC to say things they would never say in person.

The gentleman from Texas posts the criticism articles. As misleading as I consider them to be, if they are based on facts and do not editorialize, they would seem to be acceptable on Wikipedia. M4J is based in Utah and posts the Cannon/Abramoff/Farmers rumors. He thinks that Farmers and his congressman (Cannon) have conspired and spent millions of dollars to ruin his life. Run a Google on "Mormons 4 Justice" and you will see how far and wide he has taken his claims. And now he has found Wikipdia. I'll give you one thing, the fellow is persistent, if more than a bit Quixotic.Buzzards39 14:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Criticism section reduced significantly

I removed a bunch of the more in-depth stories that while referenced properly seem outside the scope of an encyclopedia article. Neutrality doesn't mean we cannot write negative material, and I find it hard to believe that there is no positive material out there...and if we need to add a bunch of positive feel good stuff to balance Ethel Adams etc then the article spins off into another world. I'm willing to discuss this with other editors and see if we can come to a reasonable balance to turn this into a quality article for the encyclopedia.

In addition, I removed the EL to farmersinsurancesucks.com. Aside from having an overt bias, it was not itself a primary source but instead was a clearinghouse of links to possibly primary sources. Regards. Syrthiss 20:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Removing criticism that is cited is not the answer to improving this article. The criticism articles were in national news and had an effect on others. Would you go and delete criticism of Enron or Worldcom to cover up their mis-steps also? Criticism is just as important as the core information about this company. The link to the gripe site provides another prospective about this company and and has links to legitimate articles and lawsuits concerning Farmers Insurance. Router 22:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, in comparison to State Farm Insurance, the criticism section as restored by you is too "in depth". I certainly don't mind something like:
"There are several instances of consumers being denied claims [1] [2], and former State Farms adjusters stated "There's so much pressure on you to settle for the least possible amount" [3]. In at least one case above though, Farmer's did indeed eventually pay the claim [4]."
...which has an encyclopedic tone, with proper sources. One of the sites I removed https://secure.farmersclass.com/clients/farmersclass/ gets a 404 error both from my work and from home, so its a useless citation (which is why I removed it and its paragraph). There's no reason to have the 'farmersinsurancesucks' site linked if we have proper, sourced criticism. Per WP:EL and WP:RS is should be removed. If you need a precedent, someone tried to add www.jaythejoke.com to Jay Mariotti and even to make an article about it. Both the link in the article and the article on jaythejoke were removed as not being a qualified reliable source that supported information in the text. Syrthiss 22:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I updated the Bell v Farmers Link, will look for citations for the others when time is available. This is in depth because it is more of an encyclopedia not a dictionary. I did look at the Jay Mariotti article and the citation was badly written and appropriately removed. The external link was removed by an IP address without any comment. I think the external link that was critical of Mariotti is appropriate and should not have been deleted. Router 21:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • In regards to the external link critical of Farmers Insurance, "On articles with multiple points of view, the number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to other equal points of view, nor give undue weight to minority views. Avoid undue weight on particular points of view. Router 17:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


Coming here in response to a note on WP:AN/I, the criticisms section didn't read like a balanced criticisms section should. The problem was a mixture of some POV wording, and how it was set out (a long list of media-reported complaints rather than prose).
Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization...

– WP:NPOV
I've put the list into a tighter prose format, which now doesn't convey the POV feel of the original, but has the same information, laid out in a way that avoids these. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio/POV section issue -- removal

The entire section of community relations is not a neutral presenmtation of Farmers. Its a WP:COPYVIO from a website they conntrol and use for self-promotion.

Examples:

Wikipedia article Farmers promotion Web link
"The Farmers Companies operate in 41 states across the country, servicing more than 15 million customers through the efforts of approximately 18,000 employees and 17,500 agents who are independent-contractor and independent agents." "Farmers Insurance Group of Companies is based in Los Angeles, California, and operates in 41 states across the country through the efforts of approximately 18,000 employees. Our agents, independent contractors and independent agents, along with Farmers employees, are responsible for servicing more than 15 million customers" google cache
"Since Farmers founding in 1928, Farmerss Insurance has been committed to improving the communities in which our customers, agents and employees live and work. Investing in our communities is nothing new to Farmers - for many decades, we’ve been proud, active partners in bettering the lives of our neighbors across the country" "Since our founding in 1928, we have been committed to improving the communities where our customers, agents and employees live and work. Investing in our communities is nothing new to Farmers. We have been proud, active partners in bettering the lives of our neighbors across the country for many decades." Farmers.com
"Farmers Insurance believes that our country’s diverse groups and cultures enrich every American. To promote greater cross-cultural understanding, Farmers has created a program honoring the Hispanic/Latino culture called

Young Americanos. Young Americanos reflects our commitment to the Latino community and to building bridges of communication and understanding among all the cultures making up the United States"

 "Farmers believes every American is enriched by the many contributions made by diverse groups and cultures in the United States. To promote understanding, Farmers has created a program honoring Hispanic culture called Young Americanos. Young Americanos is a reflection of our commitment to the Latino community and to strengthening the bridges of communication and understanding among all the diverse cultures that make up the United States." Farmers.com

I've removed sections which seem to be promotional POV, based upon copyvio. Wikipedia articles need to be based upon a neutral point of view and should not involve conflict of interest or promotion of ones business affiliations. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


Update: And again. Since when does NPOV neutral editor writing contain this kind of editorial text? Snips of this are also word for word identical with Farmers marketing of its Agents positions, for example:
Wikipedia article Farmers promotion Web link
"Farmers agents aren’t employees; they’re independent contractors who can conduct business on their own terms, given they comply with Farmers Companies’ guidelines and normal good-business practices.

This independence allows Farmers agents to live their lives the way they choose, not the way someone else chooses.

One of the unique benefits of Farmers is its comprehensive product offering." [5]

 "Farmers Agents aren’t employees; they’re independent contractors who can conduct business on their own terms, given they comply with Farmers Companies’ guidelines and normal good-business practices.

This independence allows Farmers agents to live their lives the way they choose, not the way someone else chooses.

One of the unique benefits of Farmers is its comprehensive product offering."

 careerbuilder.com
Also removed.
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is non-negotiable, and Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources are official policy or guideline. Please read, and especially take note of WP:COI#Consequences_of_ignoring_this_guideline before editing further. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agenda or lack therof of editors

I am copying this from the talk page of Router. You may draw your own conclusions:

I thought we had reached a tenable compromise on the Farmers page, but you *apparently* want to contest each and every positive thing posted, while leaving your criticisms unchallenged. I openly disclosed my interest as a Farmers agent both to the admins and and on my talk page, so others could draw their own conclusions as to the value of my edits. If you are the owner, operator, a contributor, or in any way connected to the Farmers gripe site, it is time for you to be open about that as well, as every "Criticism" cite is directly taken from that webpage. I'm not contesting your right to good faith editing, just asking that you be above board as to where your interests and possible agenda come from. Buzzards39 14:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Buzz, you posted information that cited the company's own web page. I am just agreeing with FT2. A company should not manufacture its own news to be cited on Wikimedia. It is a blatant conflict of interest and is certainly not a reliable source. Any information I would like to reveal about myself can be found on my User page. Thank you for your interest. Router 15:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Buzz everything you added to this page really should be deleted. If you are a Farmers Agent you are certainly a COI, "avoid editing articles related to your organization or its competitors". Not only are you editing an article you shouldn't be, you are citing information directly from your company web site. Router 16:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

When I made edits, I disclosed the nature of my relationship to both Syrthiss and LT2. In fact, I asked LT2 to review my edits to ensure that I had maintained NPOV. I was told specificially that as long as I was up front about it, there was not a problem. Remember, I am an independent contractor, not an employee. You have been cautioned about being a "Single purpose account" by the same Srythiss, and in fact, there was a debate on the admin page as to whether you should be blocked from editing due to this reason. Why are you not willing to be up front about your relationship or lack therof to gripe sites? All that does is fuel suspicion. If it is your site, then let readers judge for themselves what your agenda may or may not be. If you have no connection, then at least declare what your interest is. What you are "willing to reveal" only seems to reveal that you have something to hide. (IMHO) 70.103.176.242 20:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Router"

Again, I just want everyones possible motives, including my own, to be above board. Buzzards39 20:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification please

I recently added three links noting community criticism of Farmers Insurance in (what I thought) was the appropriate section of the article. It was reverted, which is fine, except I don't fully understand what I did wrong? Farmers has the most complaints of a national carrier, and as far as I can tell the most gripe sites about it as well. If I understand correctly, the issue with the gripe site links is that they are not primary sources? would linking to a clearinghouse of gripesites in general (www.webgripesites.com) be more acceptable? Cheers, -nB —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Networkboy (talk • contribs) 18:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Unless you link to primary sources with specific examples you will be reverted. Gripe sites and clearinghouses of gripes cannot be used as sources or linked in the external links. Syrthiss 18:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough. I'll get the specific links from the state gov sites then. can mention be made of the "gripe site community"? Something along the lines of "farmers has been criticized on-line in several forums and blogs commonly referred to as a gripe site" Cheers Networkboy 19:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
No, because we don't have an independent validation of the content of the sites. While I am sure that many of the concerns brought up on those sites are valid, there is also a chance that a few of them are hearsay or downright manufactured by someone with a conflict of interest. Syrthiss 20:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I understand that as a reason not to link to the sites, but to mention they exist as a general class is a matter of fact, not an opinion, so I'm a little confused about that bit. Networkboy 20:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links (critic of this company)

I found this article via the critic sites that I added to the article. According to the real bad accounts of those sites, it appears the article may be constantly checked by Farmers people and "fixed", so I'm putting the links here too:

I have never done business with these guys, this is the first time I heard about them, I'm trying to include interesting and informative links to the article... Towsonu2003 04:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, talk page already has someone from the company... interesting... Towsonu2003 05:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of links, and there seems to be significant consensus that attack sites should not be linked. I can guarantee that www.parishiltonsucks.com isn't trying to be a balanced accounting of Paris Hilton's life, and the sites above are exactly the same. As always, if there are specific reliably sourced negative information that is within the scope of the article then add it and source it. Syrthiss 12:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I disagree there is no "significant consensus" in regards to complaint sites. If anything there is a consensus to have them present, but you continue to delete them . In a Paypal discussion there was agreement that a few links to complaint sites that criticize a company are OK. Syrthiss, please point to your source that there is a "significant consensus that attack sites should not be linked". Router 20:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I point to the request for clarification that jpgordon and I put to the arbitration committee, and to WP:RS (which assuredly has consensus). It is not a reliable source, though it does contain reliable sources that can be used in the article. Surely you will not argue that any ****sucks.com or fuck****.com has as a primary mission the neutral, unbiased reporting of anything having to do with the subject ****, sponsored by a well-vetted reporting organization? You are again giving the indication that you are editing Wikipedia solely to right great wrongs with this obsession over including these sites. Syrthiss 12:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Would you mind directing me to your (and jpgordons) request for clarification, so I may see the detailed answer. I believe including critical sites help give a full perspective. I am trying to learn the process of wikipedia and hence this discussion. Thanks Router 15:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism: Farmers Insurance has most number of complaints

I looked at the website for the CA dept. of Insurance, since the claim is posted in the article that Famers is the "worst" in this state. According to the ratio of "Justified complaints", Farmers is not the worst by a long shot. They ranked ahead of Allstate, Travelers, Allied, and many other national carriers. I will be taking a look at other states, and if they are the "worst" among major carriers, I will leave the state up. If not, I will edit it. I'm not trying to affect a whitewash, just striving for accuracy. As I have stated before, in the interest of full disclosure,I am not an employee of Farmers, and my actions are my own, and not on their behalf, though I do sell their products as an agent.Buzzards39 16:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC) Further perusal of states Insurance department reports reveals that the only state on the list where Farmers had the hightest complaint ratio among major carriers was in Kansas. In every other state, Farmers had a lower ratio than many other carriers. There were other insurers in KS with worse ratios, but they were not major players in the market, so I did leave that up. Among the carriers with consistiently worse ratios were: Progressive, Allstate, Safeco, American Family, AIG. State Farm and USAA had consistiently lower ratios, Gieco, Liberty Mutual, and Nationwide were both higher and lower depending on the state.Buzzards39 18:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

  • It should read most number of complaints not lowest ratio. I updated to reflect this. I will update the other states when I have time. Router 00:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Absolute number of complaints is not a valid measure. Larger companies with a higher market share will always have a higher number of complaints than smaller companies. That is why "Complaint ratios" exist. Based on ratio, Farmers is not the "Worst" by a long shot.70.58.36.14 04:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Number of complaints is a valid measure and that is why State Insurance Departments measure it, record it and publish it and that is why this article cites it. Router 04:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • 70.58.36.14/Buzzards39, since you are a Farmers Insurance Agent please do not edit the Criticism section it is a a conflict of interest and you could be banned from these boards for doing so. You may add the article and the Accolades section, but deleting Criticism or justifying it is going to far, Router 04:32, 25 February 2007
  • I would be happy to have an administrator arbitrate my edits. By all means, bring my edits to the attention of Wiki administrators. By using misleading statistics, you have revealed your blatant lack of NPOV. Again, I ask: Are you or are you not connected to a Farmers "Gripe site"? (And again I predict, you will not choose to answer). Large companies will always have a larger absolute number of complaints, but a smaller company with a significantly higher ratio across several states is undeniably a "worse" company.
    • In my opinion, the entire Criticism section should be removed. It's a violation of WP:NPOV, and none of the criticisms are really that relevant to an article on Farmers Insurance Group. Furthermore, trying to synthesize occurences of Farmers on lists of complaints against insurance companies in particular areas in particular timeframes into some kind of general criticism is clearly original research (a new analysis or synthesis of primary source information), and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. If there is legitimate, notable criticism of Farmers, I don't see any evidence of it here. As it stands, this article being fragmented into "Criticism" for negative information and "Accolades" for positive information is directly against WP:NPOV. Mangojuicetalk 04:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Corporations generally have a Criticism section and sometimes a whole article that addresses their criticism. See Microsoft Criticism and Criticism_of_Microsoft. This is NPOV and not unusual. Router 17:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Criticism sections should address notable and relevant criticisms, though. Microsoft has been criticized as a monopoly and underwent an anti-trust lawsuit for it, and lots and lots more has been written about Microsoft's business practices. The only thing I see here that may have encyclopedic relevance is the overtime pay lawsuit, and I'm rather mixed about that because no evidence is presented that it had any significant impact on the company. The rest of it is a bunch of unsurprising information spun to look like a criticism, which is totally unacceptable. Obviously, Farmers will have been the target of lawsuits from policyholders on occasion, this is to be expected of an insurance company, and obviously those people will have negative things to say. A few bad reviews here and there and cherry-picked statistics about customer complaints mean nothing, and if you take those objectionable parts away, all you're left with is the overtime pay case. However, I do see that WP:NPOV doesn't address this issue directly, so let me explain. Neutrality cannot be achieved by an article being split into sections for supporters and sections for detractors, and letting those sections be written from those points of view. Rather, the whole article must present the material in a neutral stance. Having a "for critics" section (which is basically what the section here is about) and a "for fans" section implies that the two sides don't have to get together and agree on a fair, neutral presentation which is not the case. This article could have a criticism section if (1) there's really notable, interesting criticism of the company to speak of and (2) that section is written from a neutral point of view. But since neither of those are the case here (at least, I've seen no evidence of (1) and (2) definitely fails), the criticism section should be removed. Mangojuicetalk 20:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
          • And lest it appear otherwise, let me also say that I don't approve of the Accolades section or any of the material there, either. It again seems like obscure minor news items about the company, picked to offset the criticism section, or just picked to portray the company in a positive light. I don't see an original research issue there, though. Mangojuicetalk 21:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I posted a query to "Router" regarding his last two edits. He has not responded, but it was only a few hours ago. I am not sure what these last two external links bring to this article, especially the "Bad Faith Insurance" link, which seems only to insinuate without citation that Farmers is involved more with this type of litigation than other companies. I saw that on the State Farm article, the criticism/accolades debate was moved to the discussion page, where [NPOV] and {COI] considerations are not so important. I think that it would be a good idea, but am hesitant to do it myself, lest [COI] accusations fly. Buzzards39 19:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Unless there are objections, I am going to edit out the "Bad Faith Insurance" link. This link is not posted on any other insurance company article and there is no citable source to indicate that Farmers stands out in any way above other similarly sized companies. If someone has a problem with this edit, post a note to me today or run it up an admins flagpole. I personally think the "Insurance" link is kind of redundant, but does not pose the NPOV issue that the "Bad Faith" link does. I'll wait a few hours before I make any changes. Buzzards39 13:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See also

Buzzards39, The "See Also" has links to other articles releveant to Farmers Insurance. There doesn't need to be a source to link to other articles. If you don't find these "See Also" links to on other insurance companies you are welcome to add them. Do not remove the link from the article. Router 15:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I checked the links on the "Bad Faith" article, found only one which referred to Farmers among a blizzard of legal cites to a myriad of other companies, which would seem to make my point... And there is this note from an admin the last time you created a "See also" section: 18:51, 25 February 2007 FCYTravis (Talk | contribs) (→See also - We don't "see also" external links.). So not only is the link problematic from an NPOV point of view, but the whole idea of a "see also" section of the article has been judged inappropriate by an uninvolved third party. I humbly submit that the best course of action would be for you to revert the edit yourself. And I am still curious what your issue is with Farmers. You and anyone who reads this discussion knows where I am coming from, but all you say is that you "may consider yourself an expert". But your expertise does not seem to extend to other insurance companies or topics. Are you a customer who had a dispute? A competitor? The owner of the gripe site, as I have postulated? A little disclosure would go a long way towards understanding-maybe even accepting-your edits. Have a nice one :-) Buzzards39 16:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I will not be reverting my addition. FCYTravis was referring to "external links" not internal links. Have a nice day! Router 17:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Point taken on internal vs. external. So I decided to improve on your fine work and add more highly relevant and informative internal links. I also continue to note and point out your lack of disclosure as to your reason for continually seeking to turn this article into a hit piece on one company. Buzzards39 13:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Re: The latest edit by "Router". My problem is not the edit per se. The statement was sheer opinon and not a constructive addition to a Wikipedia article. Just of like your "worst insurance company" statement that you posted. But when I edited out your opinion, you accused me of vandalism and warned me not to remove your postings. When you deleted the latest statement, you called it:03:28, 6 April 2007 Router (Talk | contribs) (Remove blatant lie). What makes your opinion, which is not supported by facts, a critical part of the article, but his opinion a "lie"? NPOV, NPOV, NPOV. Buzzards39 13:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Alert

Who give a hoot which section comes first? I dont, but " 75.72.208.202" does, so what is the big stinkin' deal, Mr. Router, or should I call you "Routerboy" like you used in your scam.com posting linking directly to your gripe site? He has just as much of a right to make edits as you do, maybe more, since we know of your derision of anything to do with Farmers. I'll leave it up to him to decide if he wants to undo your revert, but this is not your personal soapbox.

  • It was reverted for NPOV reasons. Users should not move sections around to "give the benefit of the doubt" first. 71.199.61.26, please sign your comments. Router 02:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about leaving the sig of my last post. I was using a different PC, didn't notice that I was not signed in. However, the point remains that the operator of a gripe site is the last person who should be complaining about NPOV-or making edits to supposedly restore said NPOV. I've said it before, I'll say it again, you will ignore it, but anyone reading this discussion page can make their own judgements. You are the owner and operator of a gripe site pertaining to Farmers Insurance. This is not your personal soapbox. If you want to post criticism, you should openly identify your relationship to said gripe site, as I have openly disclosed my relationship to Farmers. If you want to assert that you have no such relationship, then you need to explain why the great majority of your posts are related to this article and all of them are negative. Nuff said. Buzzards39 15:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lord of Mishap

So I was looking through my old contributions, when I came to this page. Why does the main article link redirect here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Old m (talk • contribs) 17:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

You have screwed up this article! Please use a sandbox til you know how to cite materials. Router 14:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Whatever small problem my typo may have caused, you just tried to re-hijack this article. It is NOT your sandbox for whatever problems you personally have with Farmers. Last winter/spring, every time an admin had to get involved, you were shot down. I have restored phrasing that is not soapbox in nature, the only entries I removed were the links to two gripe sites. Buzzards39 01:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

  • FBIC is not a gripe site, do not delete the link. It is cited and uses stats from Dept of Insurance Router 14:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • You are a Farmers Insurance Agent, do NOT edit and delete information in Criticism section. NPOV Router 14:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • And you, Mr. Router/Routerboy, are the owner and operator of a gripe site dedicated solely to criticism of Farmers, whose edits incorporate verbage directly taken from that site. The FBIC site is run by attorneys who make a living going after large insurers for "bad faith" lawsuits. As always, I am happy to submit our edits to a neutral admin, but this site is (again), not your private soapbox. Buzzards39 15:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, or in some cases it's clear there is a consensus, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. Better yet, edit the article yourself with the improvements in place. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) 22:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trying to avoid an edit war

Well, Mr. Router, I don't want a repeat of the edit/revert wars that we went through a few months back. But I am not willing to surrender control of this article to the owner of a gripe site with an axe to grind. If we have to, I am willing to seek a third opinion and abide by that. Briefly put, here are my issues:

-You are not in a position to be lecturing on NPOV or Conflicts of interest. You won't come out and admit it, but you ARE the operator of a Farmers gripe site. On another website where links to that site are posted, the user "Routerboy" says that he is an IT guy from the Pacific Northwest. And on the gripe site, scanned documents referring to a court dispute between the owner of said site and Farmers Insurance are from a court in Washington State. I am an agent who sells Farmers Insurance products-but I have always been up front and above board about that. When you are asked about your interest, you have repeatedly refused to forthcoming. "I may consider myself to be an expert" hardly qualifies.

-Many of your edits to this article use language taken word for word from that site.

-The statistics you cite in the criticisms section you created and have maintained are misleading and designed to put Farmers in the worst possible light. For example, in citing JD Powers studies, you only mention the lowest rankings, not the categories where Farmers was ranked higher, nor do you mention the overall average, which is not the lowest by any means. In citing complaint statistics, you only mention the total number of complaints, even though an admin several months ago told you that the Complaint Ratio was a much more relevant statistic. I.E., if you have 20% market share and twice the number of complaints of a company with 5% share, your ratio is only half of the smaller company. But you have edited out references to complaint ratios several times, while leaving in your cherry-picked examples of isolated years in individual states.

-"Fight Bad Faith Insurance" is also a gripe site, run by lawyers who make a living suing Insurers for alleged "Bad Faith". They offer no statistics behind their rankings, the rankings on that site are purely their own. And even they put Farmers ranking better that their position in the industry (#3 in premiums written for home/auto, but #6 on their bad list-so if they are using objective statistics, then Farmers is better than the industry).

I'm sure that you have some issues with my edits, you are free to post them on this discussion board as well. I will cross post this to your talk page so that you can have a chance to look at it. Do you want to call for a third opinion, or should I? Buzzards39 21:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Router"

  • Do what you need to do, just quit editing the criticism section. It is a clear violation of NPOV since you are a Farmers Insurance Agent. Router 05:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Pot/Kettle/Black on NPOV and COI, Mr. Router sir. I posted a request for a third opinion from someone without an agenda. I will refrain from making edits for a short time in order to allow that process to sort itself out, but your deceptive and incomplete criticisms belie your bias, IMHO, of course. Buzzards39 06:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

  • First off, everyone calm down. I understand tensions are flaring, but nothing is going to get solved if all you do is yell at each other.
  • Next, stop reverting, or else you're going to break 3RR.
  • Buzzards39, if you're really a Farmers insurance agent, then you're treading on thin ice with regards to WP:NPOV. Please be careful with your edits. Criticism is allowed here.
  • Router, this is not a place to grind an axe. If you keep a site that keeps track of problems with Farmers, that's fine, but keep it away from here. I believe Buzzards39 has a right to post here, as long as he follows the rules (and avoids things like WP:PEACOCK), but you also need to follow the rules.
  • I see nothing wrong with a criticism section, but the one that is currently there is unacceptable. It reeks of original research, particularly in the "Employees, Claim Denying and Lowballing" subsection. You must cite credible sources. Newspapers and magazines are credible; sites like BadFaithInsurance.org are not. See WP:NOTE for more on credible sources.
  • The references on this page need a great deal of work. Read WP:REF, and use these templates when citing sources.
  • Side comment: This page is a mess, particularly in the introduction and history sections. And what's with the image on the top? Seems completely superfluous.

I went ahead and changed the issues with the page. You guys have a lot of work to do; I'll stick around and keep an eye on things. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 07:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts. I will try to tread carefully on thin ice, so as not to bread through. Valid criticism is fine, lets just address the three main concerns: 1. Including only total complaints to cherry-picked states in cherry-picked years, with no mention of complaint ratios, which are a much more valid measure. 2. Citing only credible sources, such as newspaper and magazine articles. The bad faith site and other gripe oriented sites are not citable. 3. Deceptive citing of ratings, only mentioning the low rankings, ignoring higher ranked areas. This has been done with both the J.D. Powers and the Consumer Reports studies. If the entry read something like: "Of 25 major auto insurance companies rated by ABC in 2005, Farmers ranked 17th", or something to that effect, I'd have no problems. Anyone have cause for disagreement? Buzzards39 19:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The one thing I'm not entirely clear on yet is the presence of original research. I'm not sure if the analysis of the JD Powers link constitutes OR. Unless it explicitly gives a ranking somewhere (and the JD Power one doesn't; I see a few other companies listed there with the same votes as Farmers) I don't think we can say all that much. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 01:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This issue with original research is new to me. If I understand it, then citing a ranking by a citable source is legit, but cherry-picking parts of a report, or not only posting the results you agree with, constitutes original research ? How about the problem with citing complaint statistics only from certain states in those years where Farmers had the highest absolute number of complaints, regardless of the ratio issue that was my original point? And would someone looking at those same reports and posting the ratio numbers or a summary of what the ratios reveal be conducting this dreaded original research? Finally, once we get this all sorted out, how-or who-makes the edits to bring the article into compliance? Router certainly isn't going to do it, and history has shown that he will blow a gasket if I do, though if guidance is recieved from a neutral party and I get the go-ahead, I'll be happy to take the heat, I just don't want to descend into a revert war. Buzzards39 05:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... that's the part of OR that I'm not too clear on. The WP:OR article doesn't really cover this instance. Let me ask around a bit and see if I can get an answer. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 06:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I asked here. What do you think? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 01:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems like the OR issue is a bit of a nit to pick. The main issue of NPOV remains and would seem to be the crux of the matter. In this case, it is the presenting of legitimate references in such a way as to put the most negative light on the company at hand, and the link to the "Bad Faith" site. I have no problem with legit criticism. The newspaper articles cited did happen, and would seem to be within guidelines. It is the rankings and the complaint statistics that have been twisted around. These citations and much of the verbage have been lifted almost verbatim from the gripe site that I allege Router operates for reasons listed above. My real question is: Where do we go from here? Even though he has not participated in this back and forth, you can be sure that Mr. Router is lurking, and if I make any edits to his critiques, will pounce and revert and try to warn me off, and we are right back where we were a few days ago. Buzzards39 05:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As to Router's potential lurking, it's in your best interest to assume good faith. If this issue grows (and I hope it doesn't), your comments may come into question, and it's best for you to take the high ground. For now, do not worry about Router; we'll deal with that issue as it comes.
The OR thing may be a bit too technical for now, as the article needs a larger overhaul. I am more than willing to help out with this effort. Give me some time to work on the article; I'll post here when I edit things so you can take a look at them and make any changes you think are necessary. The first goal, I think, is to get things back to POV. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 06:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I removed the FBIC link per discussion here. Router 15:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Router sir: Thanks for that. The lasest reference posted, however, is another illustration of what I have been talking about in regards to painting statistics in the worst possible light. Yes, Farmers did have the highest number of absolute complaints due to its high market share, but the following major insurers in Washington had worse complaint ratios: Auto: Esurance, AIG, Gieco, Hartford, and many other small companies. Homeowners: Allstate, Hartford, Safeco, Metropolitan, plus a host of small players. The Washington Department of Insurance rates Farmers as being "Slightly above average" according to their ranking. It is also worth noting that this ie one year in one state. But to read the statement in the critisicm section, it only says that Farmers has the highest number. Most readers of this article are not going to dig down into the statistics to see what the statement really means. So the statement, while literally true, is not nuetral, and is in fact deliberately misleading. This is why I am asking uninterested parties to take a look at this article, since any edits by me provoke a furious reaction by you, and your own personal biases lead you to try to make this article one sided against Farmers. I admit my own biases, but am trying to help craft an objective piece that while not whitewashing any problems, is at least evenhanded. Buzzards39 16:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Router, can you explain to me how this article claims that "Farmers Insurance receives a large number of complaints to state insurance commissioners in Western states, sometimes recieving the highest absolute number of complaints in certain states in certain years"? The article is only about companies giving a great deal of money to fund a repeal of a law that is against their interests. On a side note, the use of "certain states in certain years" counts as WP:WW. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 16:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Look at the graphic (at bottom of article) it displays the companies with the most number of complaints in Washington state. With Farmers Insurance leading the pack with 426 complaints in 2006, the most by any insurance company. Router 16:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup and edits

Here's what I've done.

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

More edits:

  • History section - removed a lot of text that was copied directly from here.
  • The info on being incorporated in Nevada in 1927 is contradictory to the fact that the company was founded in 1928.
  • Removed over-wikifying of links.
  • Added confusing template; even I'm confused by this.

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

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

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

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

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

One last overhaul of the criticism page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nice try, but you can't just link to the Consumer Reports main page. It needs to be a direct link to the source. I searched through the CR site, but I can't find the article in question. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
On a side note, can the two of you please indent your comments properly using colons (:) rather than just putting stars next to your posts? It would help a lot to keep the comments in order here. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems they revamped the web site and the link I have is dead [6]. I do have a print out (PDF) of the report. What to do? Router 19:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Can you find the article printed elsewhere? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I did some looking unsuccessfully. Router 21:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] OR/NPOV Text

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

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

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