Talk:Insurance Corporation of British Columbia

sexual orientation

"Like other insurance companies, ICBC bases its premiums on a client's claims history, type of automobile, sexual orientation and geographic location."

This is true, obviously, in fact the next sentence contradicts it, so I've removed the bit about orientation. 24.108.203.148 (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Intro lines

The intro states "By law, all owners of vehicles registered in BC must purchase ICBC's basic insurance package from an independent broker." which is not entirely accurate, any vehicle registered and driven or parked on public streets requires basic insurance, not sure how to make it sound reasonable though. If someone could edit it. Thanks RichMac (Talk) 23:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You said it best! Edited per suggestion. fishhead64 (talk) 04:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

POV

How POV can you get! Is this an encyclopedia entry or a critique of ICBC? I've edited out the offending sentences about "moral and ethical implications." Fishhead64 20:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I redid the whole thing, instead :) Fishhead64 21:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to get into an edit war over this page, but the amendments made render the article with a heavy anti-ICBC perspective. Why can't we just allude to the controversy, and then retain the external links? That seems more in-line with the wikidpedia NPOV mandate. Fishhead64 19:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Per the recommendations of Fullstop, I have edited the article as follows:

• Removed "mandatory" from introduction, since the article already twice states that the basic insurance is universally required to be purchased.
• Moved the last paragraph of Controversy to the end of the introduction.
• Altered the controversy section to remove the long paragraph and put the items into point form. Removed anti-ICBC POV language and uncited claims, and edited for cocision and clarity.
• Removed duplicate link from External links

I trust we don't get into a revert war and everyone is happy. If not, can we try and hammer out a consensus on the talk page rather than revert ad infinitum? Thanks! Fishhead64 21:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

revert war

There must be better topics for a revert war than ICBC. I can't imagine anyone caring enough. Anyway, I did think it was worth mentioning that there are occasional efforts to get rid of or reform ICBC but that, despite the things everyone dislikes about it, the continuing existence of ICBC has the support of powerful and/or vocal groups, like lawyers (and itself), and so far it looks like ICBC is here to stay. But I won't be editing this article.

©?

I've noticed that some of the text in this article appears to be plagiarized from http://www.icbc.com/inside_icbc/corpinfo.asp. I may have to flag this article as a copyright violation unless this can be fixed.  Denelson83  01:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh oh

I was simply unable to believe that there was no article on ICBC, especially given the number of dead links in other wiki articles. I was unable to find any record of an AfD (or similar deletion process). Given that the creation of public automobile insurance corporations was a significant hallmark of NDP regimes in Canada, the topic is certainly notable. However, upon "creating" this page this talk page "reappeared".

It appears I've re-opened Pandora's Box (or at least a can of worms), but c'est la guerre. For what it's worth, this is certainly a notable encyclopedic topic, but I'm heading for the hills on this one. Fluit 00:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted for copyright violations. I have the information that was deleted on my talk page. You can retrieve it there, if you want (the copyrighted portions have been excised). I was just waiting til I had the time/motivation. The various editors had actually reached a level of equanimity before the copyright paranoia set in. Fishhead64 01:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Excellent. No use reinventing the wheel (or the wiki). I'll leave it you (and others) who actually put in the real work. I just thought it a bit surprising that there was this gap. Fluit 01:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)