Talk:State Farm Insurance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Illinois (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Companies (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Cooperatives (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cooperatives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cooperatives on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Listing of Research Center as a sponsorship?[edit]

I believe the Research Center should not be listed under the "Sponsorships" heading. State Farm does not "sponsor" the Research Center in the same manner in which it sponsors the three other items listed -- which are all 3 sporting events. Work done at the Research Center is done for the insurance/financial services business and those interns are employees of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. Any thoughts? Webbyj (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Citations[edit]

Most of the citations of this article are from statefarm.com ... Statefarm article has citations from statefarms.com and that is neutral? are you kidding me?!!! I'm escalating the article and may even recommend it's removal if better, more neutral and dependable citations are not presented. This is far from wikipedia standard. We CANNOT let wikipedia be used as a mouthpiece for some corporation! If you want to do that, you have have to get me banned! Amartya ray2001 (talk) 10:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Who do you allege has a COI? If it's me, you had best retract it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not implying any particular editor. If no resolution is reached in this discussion, I'll escalate the matter and let the experts decide about who that/those editors are! My job as a responsible editor is to uphold wikipedia policies irrespective of the nature of the write... I don't see why anyone needs to get alarmed! Amartya ray2001 (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
You can't make a baseless charge like that. If you took it to the COI page, the first thing the "experts" are going to say is, "What's your evidence?" and if you repeat that you don't have time to look for it, that will put an end to the discussion in a hurry. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
My evidence is the fact that most of the citations of this article are/were from statefarm.com ... I can make a website and then an article on my name! That is not acceptable. statefarm.com is not a reliable source for Statefarm article... Mention of it once or twice may be accpetable... But to base the entire article on that one website is more than suspicious. I can't see why other editors should take this personally! This is about wikipedia and making it better. Not statefarm! I'm from India where statefarm is not even present (to the best of my knowledge). I've nothing to do with the company and therefore if anyone thinks this is a vendetta or something, that cannot be true. However, whenever I come across an article which needs deletion or massive change, I'll protest and point it out, irrespective of what others think. Amartya ray2001 (talk) 11:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
The difference is that you and I are not notable. State Farm is. And if you can prove their website is lying, then do so, otherwise you're making false accusations. The expert review tag invites finding better citations. To claim the items are "uncited" is false. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I don't have to prove the website is lying or what not! A statefarm article CANNOT be based on citations from statefarm.com. As long as better cations are absent, the article does not deserve to be on wikipedia. We need to delete the article, find better citations, and then post it back in! Amartya ray2001 (talk) 11:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

What rule are you basing your assertions on? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Based on this document.

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered; see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, paper, document, book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may therefore be published materials with a reliable publication process; they may be authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question; or they may be both.

How reliable a source is, and the basis of its reliability, depends on the context. As a general rule, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

In the context of State Farm Insurance, statefarm.com is not a reliable source... I'm re-establishing the {{COI}} template thus! Amartya ray2001 (talk) 12:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You're claiming State Farm is not a reliable source. Prove it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
This is context, statefarm.com is not a reliable source... I've already answered that before. Please don't repeat ur question. : Even after Baseball Bugs removed the sentences where I raised objections on, even the rest of the article is filled (almost every one) citations from statefarm.com ... We need to delete this article, find better citations and post it back again! I'm going to re-establish the {{COI}} Amartya ray2001 (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Amartya ray2001, I sorry, but Baseball Bugs is correct here and you are misreading policy. There is nothing wrong with using statefarm.com for as a source for uncontroversial assertions. If you want to challenge specific assertions, that might be valid as companies do sometimes lie or present the truth selectively. Also, the COI tag is about the individual(s) making the edit(s), not a general tag for article quality. Unless you have evidence linking Baseball Bugs to State Farm, the COI tag is inappropriate. olderwiser 12:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Alright Bkonrad since this is the opinion at large, I'll remove COI tag and replace it with NPoV... But I cannot understand why we should make an entire article mostly with statefarm.com! Like you said Bkonrad ... corporations cannot be trusted with their own data! Amartya ray2001 (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
You have twisted what Bkonrad said. And you have no evidence supporting an NPOV tag other than your assumption of bad faith toward the editors here. However, the specific citations could be templated with "better source", as suggested at ANI, rather than just "citation needed", which is misleading. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Buildings[edit]

I think that there are least two State Farm buildings that are notable enough architecturally to probably have their own page.

  • State Farm Downtown Building: this 162 foot tall art deco structure is still the tallest building in downtown Bloomington and housed the company's headquarters for many years.
  • State Farm Headquarters: This building is almost 200 feet tall and is the tallest building in Bloomington. It's a modernist structure that was completed in 1971.

I'm going to do what I can to dig up some sources on these buildings and start a couple articles. I'll also be attempting to get them into DYK once they're ready.

If anyone has anything to contribute please do.

IvoShandor (talk) 01:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I may have overestimated the notability of these buildings. There's not a lot out there, maybe enough to compile a short article on each and establish their notability. We'll see what else is forthcoming. IvoShandor (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Criticisms[edit]

This article states that the bribe was in the amount of $50K but the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Scruggs says $40K. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.178.165.185 (talk) 03:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The cited Times article says that the original bribe amount was $40k but that Scruggs agreed to pay an additional $10k when a subordinate, cooperating with investigators, relayed that the judge required the additional amount.
I'm removing the unsourced statement in the article, "This was widely viewed as a major victory and exoneration for State Farm." The case was not directly related to the Katrina case, and the statement is not supported by the given citation. If someone finds a source to support the statement, please feel free to restore it with proper citation. --Greenbreen (talk) 00:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)