Talk:State Farm

Listing of Research Center as a sponsorship?

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

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. older ≠ wiser 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)

It's been a decade since the Expert tag was added, and recent contributions have been sourced outside of statefarm.com, so I'm going to remove the tag. JoLuMo (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Buildings

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.

• (Sources: [1]).IvoShandor (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• More sources: [2], [3], [4], [5]IvoShandor (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• 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

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)

Commercials

>This commercial structure is from State Farm's "Get to a Better State" campaign that premiered in June 2011, with an increased spending budget.

Is there any information on why, 3.5 years later, they are still running four of the original five (?) commercials (the "French" model ad hasn't been aired for well over a year)? I'm curious as to why they think this type of ad campaign has been so effective for them and I think this should be included in the entry. Does anyone know? Rissa, copy editor (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 4 June 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) —Guanaco 04:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

---

State Farm Insurance → State Farm – As of January 1, 2012, the official name for the business is State Farm, not State Farm Insurance. "Insurance" was removed from the official name that day. 2601:8C:4001:DCB9:91C0:B17C:7195:720C (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support move. State Farm is both the official and common name.  ONR  (talk)  05:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support State Farm is definitely the common name and the primary topic (with respect to usage). State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is the official name, though. I'm not sure where the nominator got the idea that the name was changed on January 1, 2012 (other than the logo change). In line with this, the content from State farm (little f) should be moved to State farm (disambiguation), while State farm (little f) should be a redirect to State Farm menaechmi (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• Relisting comment: I might have closed this as move but for the comment the content from State farm (little f) should be moved to State farm (disambiguation), while State farm (little f) should be a redirect to State Farm. I find it hard to believe that this company is the primary topic of state farm given the importance of the sovkhoz in Soviet history and ideology. More discussion is needed IMO. Andrewa (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per Andrewa, of course Sovkhoz should be primary or at least rate an equal primary as the insurance company. The title State Farm Insurance is fine, descriptive, and applicable. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• Agnostic on the proposal above but oppose the move of State farm (little f) to State farm (disambiguation) per above comments about sovkhozes. —  AjaxSmack  01:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support This is the WP:COMMONNAME, and this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the capitalized spelling. It's distinct enough from state farm per WP:SMALLDETAILS.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

I think we have rough consensus above that this company is not the primary topic of state farm (with a small "f"), currently a DAB. Thanks to those who participated in this side discussion. It doesn't affect the main RM result, but it was important to discuss it once it was raised, as the suggestion might otherwise have been seen as unopposed by the RM closer. Instead it is now settled in the negative IMO. Andrewa (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

reddit

Just a heads up, this article was linked to from a popular reddit post.

https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/9e5nmn/til_state_farm_paid_145million_in_punitive/e5mi5tx/

Benjamin (talk) 10:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

Really confusing and generally bad to have the infobox for an extant company start out with "Fate" and "Successor" blurbs, based on the sale of a portion of the business. 174.115.100.93 (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

"Snake Farm Insurance" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Snake Farm Insurance and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 25#Snake Farm Insurance until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 15:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Copied Text from State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell

Edittedbyageek (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Insurance

I was giving a quote for 61 dollars 2603:6010:B000:761:D528:970F:C821:B153 (talk) 12:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)