Talk:Farmers Insurance Group: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 02:09, 12 January 2007 editFT2 (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators55,546 edits Copyvio/POV section issue -- removal← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 18:57, 24 January 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk \| contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,731 edits Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion
(106 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|
	Farmers Insurance saved my life!
			{{WikiProject California\|importance=low\|la=yes\|la-importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject Companies \|importance=Low}}
			}}
			{{archive box\|auto=yes}}

			== Cleanup and edits ==
	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.] 01:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

			'''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 ].
			*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. — ] <span style="font-size: .7em;">] · ] ]</span> 17:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

			'''More edits:'''
			*History section - removed a lot of text that was copied directly from .
			**The history section was clearly lacking and so I have added some of the major events in a timeline. This is taken from an International Directory of Company Histories Volume 25 book. I intend to add more with references if there are additional, notable events in the timeline of the company.
			--] (]) 23:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
			*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.
			— ] <span style="font-size: .7em;">] · ] ]</span> 17:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

			'''Apologies for the constant edits/updates, but I can't do all of this in one sitting.'''
	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.
			*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 ]; also removed Texas link that was dead.
			I'll work more on this later. — ] <span style="font-size: .7em;">] · ] ]</span> 18:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

			'''Relevant Edits to HelloAnnyong's Edits:'''
	I used to think Misplaced Pages 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.
			# Added additional information to company infobox. References added.
			# Updated the first 2 paragraphs for clarity and consistency with a verifiable reference. References added.
			# Updated History section to more readable format.
			# Bolded HelloAnnyong's contributions since this is becoming very disorganized and difficult to read.
			--] (]) 22:26, 20 November 2008 (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. ] 19:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
	The fact remains that thousands of people consult Misplaced Pages 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.] 05:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

			'''One last overhaul of the criticism page:'''
	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.
			*Reorganized to separate out lawsuits and use of Colossus program.
	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.
			*Recited all articles and explained them more clearly.
	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 believe all of the criticisms are stated clearly and without a point of view.
	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.

			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.
	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.

			Anyway, I'm hopefully done with the first round of edits. What do you guys think? — ] <span style="font-size: .7em;">] · ] ]</span> 19:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
	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 Misplaced Pages. 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.] 14:55, 3 January 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. ] 21:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
	== Criticism section reduced significantly ==
			::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". Of the 26 companies surveyed, Farmers was tied for 20th place."? — ] <span style="font-size: .7em;">] · ] ]</span> 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..." ] 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". ] <span style="font-size: .7em;">] · ] ]</span>, I appreciate your help with all this. ] 22:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
	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.
			::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... — ] <span style="font-size: .7em;">] · ] ]</span> 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 ] 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 ] googled them and put them in his gripe site, do not seem to rise to the level of uniqueness and notabilty to pass the ] test. If they do, then every time Farmers is sued, ] 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. ] 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. — ] <span style="font-size: .7em;">] · ] ]</span> 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. ] 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. — ] <span style="font-size: .7em;">] · ] ]</span> 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. — ] <span style="font-size: .7em;">] · ] ]</span> 19:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
			::It seems they revamped the web site and the link I have is dead . I do have a print out (PDF) of the report. What to do? ] 19:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
			:::Can you find the article printed elsewhere? — ] <span style="font-size: .7em;">] · ] ]</span> 19:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
			: I did some looking unsuccessfully. ] 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 ] 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 ]? ] 19:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
			:First, it was an inline quote that was incorrectly referenced. Next, and more importantly, I question how ] "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 - 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. — ] <span style="font-size: .7em;">] · ] ]</span> 19:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
			:Okay, I added a bit more, and added that LA Times reference in. How is it now? — ] <span style="font-size: .7em;">] · ] ]</span> 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. ] 20:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

			== OR/NPOV Text ==
	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. ] 20:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

			Twice now, Reciprocal insurance expert has a bunch of text. I've reverted it for being entirely OR/unsourced. Text such as:
	* 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. ] 22:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
			{{Quotation\|"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. Misplaced Pages, 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. — ] <sup>]</sup> 14:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

			== Creation of Ratings Section ==
	:Well, in comparison to ], the criticism section as restored by you is too "in depth". I certainly don't mind something like:
			I believe that all the ratings, whether positive or negative, would fit best into its own "Ratings" section overall. The intent is to put more NPOV ratings in instead of trying to collect them as Accolade or Criticism. I may also make edits for grammar, readability, and updating of any broken references. Please leave a message here if you disagree.
			--15:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)] (])

			== See Also ==
	::"There are several instances of consumers being denied claims , and former State Farms adjusters stated "There's so much pressure on you to settle for the least possible amount" . In at least one case above though, Farmer's did indeed eventually pay the claim ."
			I think this section should be pared down to only to Zurich Financial Services. Since Farmers Insurance is a major part of the Zurich Financial Services company, it warrants being listed in the See Also. The other notes are only somewhat related or have a bias that is not in keeping with NPOV. I'll remove them for now and if anyone has any issues with it, then let's please discuss it here.

			--] (]) 19:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
	:...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 ] and ] is should be removed. If you need a precedent, someone tried to add www.jaythejoke.com to ] 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. ] 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. ] 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. . ] 17:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

			== New logo ==

			'''Farmers have a new logo'''
	:: Coming here in response to a note on ], 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).

			== Reads Like a Commercial ==
	::::{\| style="border:1px solid #404040" width="80%"
			Given substantial negative attention on the net (e.g., http://farmersinsurancegroupsucks.com/ ) I would expect some of that to be reflected professionally here...but this page reads like an advertisement. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	\| <small>''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...''
	<p align="right">– ]</p></small>
	\|}

			== External links modified ==
	:: 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. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] \| ])</span></sup> 01:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	== Copyvio/POV section issue -- removal ==

			I have just modified {{plural:1\|one external link\|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	The entire section of community relations is not a neutral presenmtation of Farmers. Its a ] from a website they conntrol and use for self-promotion.
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090331132536/http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com:80/scripts/getcase.pl?court=or&vol=S053405&invol=1 to http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=or&vol=S053405&invol=1

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	Examples:

			{{sourcecheck\|needhelp=}}
	{\| style="border:1px solid black"
	! Misplaced Pages 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"
	\|
	\|-
	\| "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 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

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 22:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
	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."
	\|
	\|-
	\|}

			== External links modified ==
	I've removed sections which seem to be promotional POV, based upon copyvio. Misplaced Pages articles need to be ] and should not involve ] or promotion of ones business affiliations. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] \| ])</span></sup> 02:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,

			I have just modified 5 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
			*Added {{tlx\|dead link}} tag to http://www.fsmarchives.org/article.php?id=1385117
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081015074611/http://insurancetech.com/farmers-bus/%3Bjsessionid%3D4QM4I0W1JZN4YQSNDLPSKHSCJUNN2JVN to http://insurancetech.com/farmers-bus/%3Bjsessionid%3D4QM4I0W1JZN4YQSNDLPSKHSCJUNN2JVN
			*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sdbj.com/industry_article.asp?aID=61349182.56366202.1545856.6344067.1828206.760&aID2=118903
			*Added {{tlx\|dead link}} tag to http://www.seattlepi.com/local/335354_insurance13.html
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070107054321/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002560033_danny14.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002560033_danny14.html
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070118000043/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002569740_danny19.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002569740_danny19.html
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140709042301/http://www.lieffcabraser.com/Media-Center/Farmers-Insurance-Class-Action-Settlement-Approved.shtml to http://www.lieffcabraser.com/Media-Center/Farmers-Insurance-Class-Action-Settlement-Approved.shtml

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 09:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

			== External links modified ==

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,

			I have just modified 2 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081104103235/http://www.farmers.com/FarmComm/about_farmers.html to http://www.farmers.com/FarmComm/about_farmers.html
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120200715/http://www.farmers.com/FarmComm/index.html to http://www.farmers.com/FarmComm/index.html

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 12:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:57, 24 January 2024

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

California: Los Angeles Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Misplaced Pages:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Archives

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 17:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

More edits:

History section - removed a lot of text that was copied directly from here.
- The history section was clearly lacking and so I have added some of the major events in a timeline. This is taken from an International Directory of Company Histories Volume 25 book. I intend to add more with references if there are additional, notable events in the timeline of the company.

--Alyssa Hoffel (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

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 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 18:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Relevant Edits to HelloAnnyong's Edits:

Added additional information to company infobox. References added.
Updated the first 2 paragraphs for clarity and consistency with a verifiable reference. References added.
Updated History section to more readable format.
Bolded HelloAnnyong's contributions since this is becoming very disorganized and difficult to read.

--Alyssa Hoffel (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2008 (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 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". Of the 26 companies surveyed, Farmers was tied for 20th place."? — HelloAnnyong 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 , 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 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 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 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 19:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems they revamped the web site and the link I have is dead . 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 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 19:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I added a bit more, and added that LA Times reference in. How is it now? — HelloAnnyong 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)

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. Misplaced Pages, 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 14:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Creation of Ratings Section

I believe that all the ratings, whether positive or negative, would fit best into its own "Ratings" section overall. The intent is to put more NPOV ratings in instead of trying to collect them as Accolade or Criticism. I may also make edits for grammar, readability, and updating of any broken references. Please leave a message here if you disagree. --15:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Alyssa Hoffel (talk)

New logo

Farmers have a new logo

Reads Like a Commercial

Given substantial negative attention on the net (e.g., http://farmersinsurancegroupsucks.com/ ) I would expect some of that to be reflected professionally here...but this page reads like an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.177.44 (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Farmers Insurance Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090331132536/http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com:80/scripts/getcase.pl?court=or&vol=S053405&invol=1 to http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=or&vol=S053405&invol=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Farmers Insurance Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Farmers Insurance Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Categories:

Latest revision as of 18:57, 24 January 2024

Cleanup and edits

OR/NPOV Text

Creation of Ratings Section

See Also

New logo

Reads Like a Commercial

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified