Talk:Allstate

src: s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com

Video Talk:Allstate

buyblue.org links

Please refer to this discussion as to why the link has been reverted. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 23:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Maps Talk:Allstate

POV questions

Yea the scientology section is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too in-depth. That needs to be changed.

The scientology portion of the article is too long given that it wasn't a famous incident. For comparisions, look at the New York Life article. It discusses how the company was once in the business of insuring slaves in it's early days. This part of the company's history is only a paragraph, which is appropriate. The scientology portion should not be any longer than that. For links about this, the San Francisco Chronicle and info.insure.com are fine.

In addition, some of the links are not exactly neutral themselves. In particular, the Lermanet links discuss how Allstate is a corrupt company. Whether or not the company actually is doesn't mean we should have links to a biased website. Other auto insurers, State Farm, GEICO and Progressive Corporation do not have as many links at the bottom of their pages. Farmers Insurance does, but it is done is much more neutral tone (only one critical link). I would keep the Allstate sucks link, because Farmers has one and add appropriate critcal websites to some of the other insurers that don't currently have one, and delete the Lermanet links.Patken4 13:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

After reading the recent additions by User:Maureen D, it looks there are two issues being presented. One is how scientology, and it's Management by Statistics, was used at Allstate. This can be condensed to:

Between 1988 and 1995, Allstate used Management by Statistics program to grade it's employees. The program, which is derived from Scientology, was implemented with the help of Don Pearson. In 1994, a group of Allstate agents objected to the program use because of religious discrimination issues. It's use was later disavowed by President Jerry Choate.

I think that is far more neutral than what is currently in the article. A lot of the information in this portion could be added to an article about Management by Statistics because of lot of it has nothing to do with Allstate. In this new article, Allstate's mention should probably relate to the fact that it used the program and how it was eliminated from training materials. Citations for this in the Allstate article portion by come from the links I listed yesterday.

The second issue is the process of claims review, which I don't see have any connection to the scientology portion. This should be it's own section and more neutral. While Allstate was the first to use Colossus, many other auto insurers also use(d?) it. The cited article is from 2000, and research should be done to see if these companies still use it. The Allstate Claim Core Process review portion is basically direct quotes from other sources. This needs to be reworded at the very least. Given that claims processing is always going to be a source of contention between insurance companies and customers, it may not be necessary to add.Patken4 14:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll keep the above proposed changes here for a few days. If you have a problem with my scientology change, please post it here. Otherwise, I will assume the change is appropriate and make the change accordingly. Thanks. Patken4 00:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Since no one objected, in fact one person agreed to proposed changes, I made the changes discussed above, including shortening Scientology portion, added claims review, and deleted biased websites. Patken4 23:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Who keeps deleting sites critical of Allstate's claims practices? These are legitimate sites that anyone insterested in allstate should be aware off.

• Because currently almost half of this article is criticism of Allstate and it's practices, currently pretty NPOV, I don't know enough to add anything myself thoughElementalos (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My question would be why is there so much criticism, when other companies have complaints that aren't listed. Sure looks like a negative bias spin to me. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.127.163.142 (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

src: pbs.twimg.com

Links to external sites

I've removed a link from the external links section once before that linked to a site which was part of a link farm for multiple companies. It is a spam site and not a good reliable source of encyclopedic information about Allstate. The unregistered user with IP address: 142.179.8.176 is clearly adding it for their own personal benefit and not to increase the validity of the page. After I removed it once, the same user went back in and added it again. I noticed it was removed by another user now, so it will be interesting to see if it pops up again. Thanks! --Katie 17:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed some material that was linked to sites that were very questionable per wp:el. Those sites look like they are self published and not reliable per wp:rs. Anyways, we can and should do alot better. I am no fan of Allstate, but we need to keep it as encyclopediatic as possible. Thanks! --Tom 12:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Allstate claim's practices caused consumers to create some of the first corporate complaint web sites ever. While these web sites are self published and are not the best looking web sites I have ever seen they have relevant information that should be included. Otherwise stated, "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." These web sites contain just the sort of information that should be linked to. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.68.213.34 (talk o contribs).

I'm sure that every large insurance company in existence has a criticism site; it's the nature of the business. The links do not meet WP:EL guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I see that this site was just removed. Now this might be more debatable imo. Any other thoughts?? Thanks --Tom 15:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest a more reputable site, such as Better Business Bureau. This doesn't give details of each complaint, but the number of unresolved complaints for various issues. We can't like them all, but BBB also has reports for each Allstate insurance office [1]. Some state insurance agencies also compile rankings of insurance companies, based on complaints [2] [3]. --Aude (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with BBB and gov agency links, positive or critical. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Allstate and State Farm are the only insurance companies with corporate complaint web sites that I am aware of. In fact, Allstate has several corporate complaint web sites. These sites seem to meet the guidelines of having meaningful and relevant content. The bad faith web site also seems to have relevant and meaningful content. Also, linking fifty insurance regulatory web sits or who knows how many BBB web sites to this entry seems unworkable. Moreover, many of the disputes with Allstate end up in courts and not before the BBB or a department of insurance. This wikipedia entry site seems to whitewash Allstate's presence as a bad actor within the marketplace. Ford makes a lot of defective cars, Allstate hardballs all of its claims and this entry seems to ignore this.

As mentioned earlier, self-published complaint sites do not meet WP:Reliable sources guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually the corporate complaint sites do meet the WP:Reliable sources guidlines. Otherwise stated, "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field." As previously discussed Allstate's corporate complaint web sites are well known, non-scholarly and relevant.

src: i.ytimg.com

Awards section

I removed this since there were no sources. Thanks, --Tom 17:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

src: s.wsj.net

This qualifies as an article?

->This seems to be less an article about Allstate than it is a complaint session. No real information on the lines of insurance sold or its decisions inrelation to the rest of the industry. All this tells us is it has been reactionary about its property and casualty losses. Its not a very professional looking piece. A quick search of the internet produces similar complaints about most major insurance companies. Aegiltheugly 19:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• I've added a few positive reports of Allstate to the article, so it isn't just a complaint-fest. 68.115.194.132 16:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

src: pbs.twimg.com

Criticism Section

Thresher 19:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC) I fail to understand why this is mentioned:

"An investigative report in February 2007 by CNN found that major car insurance companies, lead by State Farm and Allstate Insurance, are increasingly fighting auto insurance claims from those who incurred soft-tissue injuries by their insured members.[6]"

Insurance companies have a vested interest in not paying for questionable injuries. Every dollar that is paid on a non-meritorious claim rewards people for anti-social behavior. All insurance companies have a duty to society to not pay more than they owe. Additionally, insurance companies have a fiduciary duty to their stockholders, or in the case a of a mutual company, their policy holders to pay only what is truly owed because insurance policy costs are directly affected by the underwriting history.

Soft tissue injuries are contentious because by their nature, there is no way to actually detect the purported injury. Insurance companies look at each claim individually. If they see a claim for soft injuries on a car with little or no damage, would it not make sense for the company to investigate it further? Would it not make sense for the company to question whether or not an injury actually occurred as a result of the accident?

--Preceding unsigned comment added by Thresher (talk o contribs) 19:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

src: fm.cnbc.com

Fair use rationale for Image:Allstate svg1.svg

Image:Allstate svg1.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Soft tissue "injuries" are often a double-whammy because in order to increase their potential settlement, "injured" victims will often make numerous trips to the doctor for treatment. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.202.222.1 (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

src: i.ytimg.com

Criticism

This hardly resembles a reputable source of information on Allstate. The criticism section is longer than the rest of the article. All insurance companies face the same criticisms that are listed on this page. If you look at other insurers' wikipedia pages, they do not contain anywhere near as much criticism (even though they have all faced just as much). This page needs a serious clean-up to be taken seriously. It is obvious that someone is moderating this page with a hatred for the company. 24.187.112.15 (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If it's cited, it stays in. That's Wikipedia policy. If you don't agree with the citation, or find another citable source that refutes the assertions, you can add to the page. If you feel the article is unduly weighted against Allstate, or that the other editors are biased, you should submit a request for moderation.THD3 (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

How many critiques do we include before it becomes a complaint page? The criticism section is too long. Do we include every complaint if it can be cited? 24.187.112.15 (talk) 07:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

If you feel the criticism section is too long, then a judicious shortening would be warranted. But deleting sections you don't like is vandalism. Comparison with other companies' Wikipages is irrelevant. I have restored the section. If you feel it's too long, shorten it. If you feel it should be eliminated, SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR ARBITRATION.THD3 (talk) 13:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No, thats not how it works at all. Content disputes are not for arbitration. Arkon (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

A section of criticism was deleted for linking to somebody's blog and to a dead article from the blog. Not an approved source. 24.187.112.15 (talk) 06:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I am deleting part of the criticism section, because it misrepresents the reference. It quotes matter as if it comes from a Business Week article, i.e. as if it is commentary of Business Week magazine approved by the editors. It is not. The quoted material appears in book review and is attributable only to the author (Bertinelli sp?), a well-known critic of Allstate. Because the book and the author's criticisms are fairly represented in a later section and the reference is misleading, I feel deletion is appropriate. However, I will add some material supporting both sides in section discussing the book. Apollo (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

While I was trying to bring the section into conformity with NPOV, I ran into a well-referenced article discussing the outcome of the Colossus claims, so I added that in the Criticism section.Apollo (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I will just add that the length of the criticism section does not impact NPOV. There has been extensive criticism of various Allstate claims-handling policies and considerable litigation; having this properly presented and cited in Wikipedia is a plus, since it documents facts concerning the company. I do think some of the criticism is written as if allegations were true, which is a per se violation of NPOV, and also that Allstate responses to criticisms has been omitted, which I have tried to correct.Apollo (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This "criticism" of these insurance claims cases is way over-developed. Claims disputes are an intrinsic component of insurance corporations in general; It's the nature of the business; In other words, try to find an insurance company that has no claim dispute related complaints. This is not to say that Allstate is in the right concerning these cases, but, that maybe wikipedia is not the most appropriate outlet for an ongoing list of dispute cases and the specific details of each of these cases. These cases in an of themselves do not particularly stand out as worthy of particular attention with respect to the billions of insurance claims disputes in existence. Cases, events, and circumstances in which the business in question is in more obvious opposition to how businesses should operate in society (As in the case of Enron) would seem (to me) to be the more appropriate kind of criticism for recording here. Or at least, convert this into a more general mention that Allstate (as major insurance companies) have had various complaints brought against them related to insurance claims in the past. Ericturner0807 (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

src: i.ytimg.com

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

src: pbs.twimg.com

North Light Specialty Insurance Co. - Subsidiary

Based in Northbrook, IL.

North Light should be shows in the Organization section under the Northbrook, IL based companies:

http://www3.ambest.com/ratings/entities/CompanyProfile.aspx?ambnum=13927&URatingId=50022&AltNum=0 http://www.burnsandwilcox.com/CategoryPage.aspx?id=1425 -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.27.157.70 (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

src: www.badgroove.com

Second-Best?

The first sentence says: The Allstate Corporation is the second largest personal lines insurer in the United States (behind State Farm and GEICO in auto)

If behind two companies, wouldn't that make them third-largest? -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.97.139 (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia

Advertiser