Talk:Allstate

message: Please refer to this discussion as to why the link has been reverted. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: buyblue.org links

message: 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)
thread_title: POV questions

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 .  Some state insurance agencies also compile rankings of insurance companies, based on complaints  . --Aude (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm fine with BBB and gov agency links, positive or critical. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: →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)
thread_title:  This qualifies as an article? 

message: Thresher 19:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism Section 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Allstate svg1.svg

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: 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:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#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)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  North Light Specialty Insurance Co. - Subsidiary 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Second-Best? 

message: Formal request has been received to merge: Mayhem (advertising character) into Allstate; dated: February 3, 2020. Proposer's rationale: This particular advertising character was made only for that company and its content can easily fit into the merge target. Pinging proposer  discuss below. Richard3120 (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Is there some reason why declining to take bailout funds is considered … worty of criticism? DOR (HK) (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism: TARP 

message: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CqMli-0GzM
AAA makes fun of Mayhem with Danger. Somebody add this to the article. Thanks. 2600:8801:E00:760:5104:6036:3F10:DC0E (talk) 06:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mayhem as Danger? 

message: — Assignment last updated by TotalSolarEclipse (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: NAS 348 Global Climate Change