Talk:USAA/Archive 10

Proposed changes

This proposes to establish two new Wikipedia root pages:

1: USAA Group: an unincorporated entity with 5.9 million members. 2.1 million persons are members of USAA Group through their subscription to the unincorporated reciprocal interinsurance exchange. Membership for the remaining 3.8 million members is conferred through simply being a customer of some service or product other than USAA - the unincorporated reciprocal interinsurance exchange. In general, members of USAA Group who are not subscribers to the unincorporated reciprocal interinsurance exchange are members of an affinity group composed of children of members; however, this is not always the case, and it may be that there are numerous members who are simply customers of USAA Group's Financial Services Operations.

2: United Services Automobile Association: a subscriber/member organization of about 2.1 million current and former commissioned officers and senior NCOs who are subscribers to the unincorporated reciprocal interinsurance exchange. Subscribers to the unincorporated reciprocal interinsurance exchange are also members of USAA Group.

Critical distinguishing factor: All 2.1 million members of United Services Automobile Association have Subscriber Savings Accounts. The 3.8 million members of USAA Group do not have Subscriber Savings Accounts! The $6.5 billion in Subscriber Savings Accounts is the cash which is used to sustain the subsidiaries of USAA Group: e.g. USAA CIC; USAA Savings Bank; USAA Real Estate Company, IMCO, etc. It is a curiosity that $6.5 billion in Subscriber Savings Accounts is almost exactly equal the USAA's stated share of the networth in those subsidiaries - $6.5 billion.

The present USAA page will remain - but will be changed to be a root page or disambiguation page for the two new pages.

This suggestion is floated on December 24, 2007 at 12:18 GMT [ZULU time]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usaa member in poland (talk • contribs) 12:18, December 24, 2007

I do not think we should do this. If we did, a merge would be suggested very quickly - the differentiation between the two is small, and they aren't different enough to warrant separate articles. You could spruce up the difference in the article if you want to. --Matt (talk) 13:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Please tell us, Mlroche, why this is a difference without a distinction. Please identify yourself and your email - and your interest in the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usaa member in poland (talk • contribs) 14:59, December 24, 2007

I challenge the notability of the distinction. The burden before you split the article is to show why the article should be split. Does the public care about the distinction between the two? If a (hypothetical) company ran its banking, insurance, and credit cards under 3 different incorporations, but appeared as a unified front to consumers as one company, I would argue the articles shouldn't be split by incorporation. In the same way, why should this article be split up in that manner? Why is that a better solution than describing in one article the corporate structure?

I reserve the right to keep my email address and identity private. --Matt (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You have the right carry on incognito: just so that we know you want your cake and to eat it too = in silent solitude - a cold gruel indeed. But the isusue remains that the article is mis-titled. USAA Group, with 5.9 million members (see the 2006 Annual Report) is the higher organization.

United Services Automobile Association, with 2.1 million members, falls under USAA Group. Davis was CEO of USAA Group. He was also the CEO of the other subsidiaries - USAA CIC etc. So in a sense, maybe the best way is to move everything to a new Wikipedia page and call it USAA Group. And then each of the subsidiaries can fall within the major group. And this also takes care of the disambiguation issue surrounding USAA. I am pretty much of an expert on the organization of reciprocal interinsurace exchanges. I'd like to know something about your qualifications to write on the subject. Do you have an MBA or any other qualifications you'd like to share with us?

Also - on the subject - how is it that you find the $6.5 billion committed by the 2.1 million subscribers of the URIE to be not noteworthy: esp. when compared to the fact that the other 3.8 million members have committed no funds. That's a little like a club where less than half the members pay dues? I find that very noteworthy. What is also noteworthy is the fact that the heirachy at USAA does not want this issue discussed. Whenever the question of the $6.5 billion comes up - it get's jumped on by teams of triple-revert instant experts. Maybe you can offer an explanation for that as well?

You also cited whether the public cared to know the distinction between the 2.1 million who have given $6.5 billion and those who have not. Are you serious? Is Jimbo now requiring the truth be sculpted so that it satisfies those issues the public cares about. Read the bitter thread of this article: and you will see a lot of people caring about these issues - mostly to make sure that they never see the light of day.

This thread and your contributions are being mailed.

We'll see how he likes the truth being manipulated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usaa member in poland (talk • contribs) 20:36, December 24, 2007

I don't believe I said that. I think you need to back up what you're saying with external notability sources. This isn't the place to create notability. We don't get to decide what's notable.

Articles are usually under what people know as the company. Check out United Airlines and UAL Corporation, for example. I'm not against forming another article about USAA Group, but I'm not sure the distinction to the public is notable enough for that. -- Matt (talk) 20:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Seems as if another sockpuppet is back and doing the work of the fellow that has so much grievance with USAA. We ran through this whole disambiguated drill about 6 months ago, and I think a couple of times before that. Each time we've came to the conclusion that this USAA should keep the USAA article name. I'm not the ruling body here, but I'd say ban "Usaa member in poland" and let other Wiki members get back to contributing/maintaining rather than dealing with such nonsense. --Brownings (talk) 15:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Unlistify

I should have clarified that the list tag I added was because the list in the middle of the prose was jarring. I've converted it. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Notable USAA Members

(continued from archived thread)

Rob Riggle comedian and USMC reserve Major —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.159.149.176 (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Marcus Luttrell former Navy Seal, author of Lone Survivor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.154.14.253 (talk) 02:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not the type of article for notability. Membership can't be proven. Most admirals and generals are USAA. It is meaningless and a casual relationship BTW. I assume the archived thread said as much.Student7 (talk) 11:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you had bothered to look at the archived thread, you would see the list comes from the member featured on the back of the USAA magazine. My guess is that if the magazine, published by USAA, does a feature in which they state someone is a USAA member, with photos and an interview, it can be assured that that person is in fact a USAA member. While you may not find it notable, I find it interesting. I mean, who would have thought that Tony Hawk would be a USAA member? Swizzlez (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "jdpower" :
  • [http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.asp?ID=2006144&search=1]
  • [http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.asp?ID=2006232&search=1]<ref>, and mortgages <ref name="jdpower"> [http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.asp?ID=2006117&search=1]
  • [http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.asp?ID=2006066&search=1]
  • [http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.asp?ID=2006030&search=1]

DumZiBoT (talk) 09:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Here are my reasons for the edits to the infobox.

Placing the key people's entire titles in the infobox results in numerous key personnel taking up two lines in the infobox. Taking up two lines isn't in and of itself the problem. However, if you compare the previous (anonymous) poster's formatting and mine, leaving entire titles causes the infobox to appear disjointed and thus, more difficult to read. I encourage you to bring up both pages side by side to see the difference.

I appreciate that abbreviating titles makes it slightly more difficult to decipher, but I believe limiting each key person to one line makes the infobox easier to read and the article more useful.

The anonymous poster points out on my talkpage that "1. lots of companies have bigger info boxes 2. most companies only show 2 or 3 key people 3. if the usaa entry only had 2 or 3 key people it would be a very small info box." I don't think the goal should be expanding USAA's infobox for the sheer purpose of making it look bigger. Perhaps finding more useful information and putting it in the infobox would be a better goal. I will work on that.

If the anonymous poster would log in and actually sign their messages, it would make this discussion easier.

Swizzlez (talk) 01:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit: Using small text for titles eliminates most abbreviations in infobox. Still looks a bit unwieldy, but not as bad as having disjointed text (i.e. parts of names & titles on one line and parts on the next), and eliminates disagreeable abbreviations. Swizzlez (talk) 02:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

While you are at it :) why not just stick to the officers voted in by ballot: CEO, maybe CFO, Pres, that sort of thing. Why do we "need" everybody? Student7 (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the latest revision. Well done Swizzlez. ANON —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.195.26.170 (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Student7, only the board of directors is elected. None of the people on USAA's "executive council" are elected (AFAIK, not even Gen Robles, who is an ex-oficio member of the board). However, since these people manage the day to day operations of all of USAA's lines of business, it seems that they meet the spirit of the term "key personnel". Your comment did make me wonder if the chairman of the board should be listed in the Key People section. Swizzlez (talk) 05:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I admit to being more at home with places and schools. In those articles we have mayors. Period. Principals. Period. No deans, no faculty, no public works director, no chief of police. The article then focuses on the article's topic and not on people. Student7 (talk) 12:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Advertising

The article seems to vary between an attack on USAA from someone who is disgruntled and WP:PR copy from someone who works for USAA. It would be very helpful if the employee would stop editing. The squeaky clean copy it results in is nauseating. Discussing and suggesting here is probably a good idea as the rest of us might overlook something.

USAA tries to create work for its current employees contrary to the needs of its subscribers. This thought cannot emerge here because it would be censored by the employee. Directors attend meetings by telephone. How on top of things can they be doing that? No comment here. This is essentially an employee-run corporation that does pretty much what it wants without outside direction from anybody. This needs to be allowed to emerge in the article instead of being suppressed by the employee or exaggerated by the disgruntled guy.Student7 (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I edit this page a lot and perhaps I'm the one being "accused" of being a USAA employee. I am not. I do, however, source pretty much all of my additions with a citation. Much of the time when certain other writers add to the article, their additions come off as opinions. This is made even more apparent when their additions have no sources to back up their writing.

It sounds like you would like the information discussed in your second paragraph above added in to the article. For one, you're going to have to find sources, and secondly, you're going to have to be accurate. USAA is not a corporation. Are you the disgruntled guy? Swizzlez (talk) 14:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Not unsourced! Not disgruntled but a bit irked sometimes. I've been a member for 51 years. It was a lot lot smaller when I joined and very personal (and helpful). It's just another large corporation today IMO. My point is you need the good with the bad in a mature article. We have almost nothing here except perfection. Nobody and nothing is perfect. When it appears to be on paper or elsewhere, the article seems to lack perspective (except for stub articles of course).Student7 (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess one wonders why, if one thinks that it is "just another large corporation", would one continue to do business with it and not just pick some other organization. While I will say that I favor USAA, it is because subjectively AND objectively, I have seen that it is pretty much BETTER than other organizations that provide the same types of services. I'm also not going to add any information portraying USAA in any kind of light, good or bad, if there isn't a reputable source providing that info. If you would like to find reputable third-party sources that say that USAA stinks, or is just average, feel free to add those and provide citations. Swizzlez (talk) 18:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually - just had a thought right after I posted that. I don't know if I heard it somewhere, read it somewhere, or otherwise just thought it, but I think that USAA may have been one of the first financial companies to securitize debt, and I think they started doing so with auto loans. This may be something to look into to add to the entry, but I can't find anything definite. I also haven't looked very hard because I haven't had a lot of time lately.

I think the way USAA securitizes is pretty decent -- from what I've seen on the internet in their SEC filings and other sources that I unfortunately can't remember, they seem to still have pretty high standards in their underwriting criteria even for loans that they know they're going to turn around and sell off. As many banks are unable to continue to package up debt and sell it off to bondholders, from the sources I've seen, USAA has been able to continue doing so even in this tough market due to its underwriting standards. Still, this would be an interesting topic for someone to research and add to the entry; if USAA was a significant player in the development of securitization of debt (back in the 1990s) this would be quite relevant to the development of the current financial crisis. Talk amongst yourselves ;) Swizzlez (talk) 18:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

USAA Email Address

What is the protical of USAA email address? Example [email protected] John Felter (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

your example is exactly correct. be aware that it could also include a middle name or a number mixed in if there are multiple people with similar names.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.115.2.246 (talk • contribs) 12 Mar 2010

Geico envy?

Envy by Buffett does not mean that Geico is a main competitor to USAA, of itself. It simply may mean that Buffett likes their business model or something. Student7 (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem with entering an unreferenced competitor is this: there is plenty of business analysts who have scrutinized both companies and know who each other's "competitors" really are. Because both sell auto insurance, it may be easy to presume that they somehow "compete" even though they may not, in actuality be after the same market at all. The USAA market is primarily aimed at the Armed Services. This is a fairly narrow group. Today, ONE percent of the adult population serves in the Armed Forces. GEICO presumably can sell to just about anyone it wants to. Are they then "competitors" because someone wants to imagine this? Why imagine? What is wrong with using documented facts? Student7 (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

An editor has written me as follows concerning the lack of documentation for GEICO being a "competitor" of USAA:

"Student7 - i question your logic friend.

A. the fact that nobody has published a "statement" of USAA competitors does not "imply" that calling GEICO a competitor is "untrue". Your argument follows this logic: if it is published it is true. if it is not published it is false. please stop it. B. even if someone did publish such a statement, it would not make it true. it would just make it a published statement and lots of analysts and journalists publish lots of stupid and wrong statements.

Try using some business logic:

1. for readers, it is germane in a "company" article to identify competitors in the industry - though i think it is crass

2. it is also germane to limit the competitors to the top/major competitors in an industry - especially if the industry has hundreds, or in the case of auto insurance even thousands of competitors

3. when identifying the top companies it is germane to use something quantifiable like market size or revenue since these companies will control the industry

4. it is also germane to group the companies within the industry. example: in banking BofA, Wells, JPMorganChase, Citi are in their own catergory of "mega banks" based on deposits

5. likewise, in auto insurance you have a mega company, State Farm, followed by a group of large national companies: geico, allstate, progressive, natiowide, usaa, farmers, and then you have all the rest whether you group by number of policies-in-force or premiums-written

6. further, in regards to a "niche company" article, it is germane to readers to focus on competitors in the same niche market

7. usaa was established to provide auto insurance to military officers - a niche market therefore a "niche company"

8. geico was established about 10 years after usaa, by a former usaa employee, to offer nco's auto insurance - usaa and geico were not YET competitors, but both were in the "auto insurance military" niche!

9. over time geico and usaa both changed their restrictions with little or no overlap - still NOT COMPETITORS

10. recently geico expanded to become a national player and is no longer a niche player; however, they still have a large portion of the nco and enlisted segments as customers

11. recently usaa expanded beyond just officers to also target nco's and enlisted - making usaa and geico the only auto ins companies that have a signficant portion of U.S. military personnel and families as customers

12. if usaa has a competitor in the "auto insurance military" niche, it's geico - usaa targets geico's nco's and enlisted customers daily! and geico knows it!

13. if one is going to list usaa competitors in the usaa article, then it should focus on the niche!!

14. since geico historically focused on auto insurance for U.S. military nco's and enlisted, and since it has a large share of nco's & enlisted, geico is a competitor of usaa

Satements 1 through 14 are LOGICAL

so, are you gonna be a "wikipedia traffic cop" and take the position that nothing can be used in an article unless it is supported by a published statement, stupidly assuming that all facts are published, and stupidly assuming that published content is correct, or are you going to use LOGIC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.152.104.158 (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC) ""

Since you have had problems handling standard Wikipedia protocol in the past, I would prefer that you communicate with me publicly and not privately. Please do it here.

Please sign comments on discussion pages with four tildes so that other editors will know who is writing the material.

The idea of an encyclopedia is that editors do not "dream up" data. "Dreaming up" or imagining data is considered WP:OR. Five hundred "logical" arguments do not compensate for lack of factual data.

"Everyone" knew that the world was undergoing global cooling after the nasty winters of 1985 and 1986. Actually that turned out not to be the case at all. No one seems to "know" that anymore, no matter how "logical" it seemed at the time. "Everyone" knew that Hillary Clinton would get the Democratic nomination for president in 2008. That, however, turned out not to be the case either. People don't always know. Knowledge is a slippery thing. That is why we use quotes and WP:RELY entries here. So when we are wrong, at least we tried our level best and just didn't write something the top of our heads. In regular encyclopedias, they employ experts who really do know. When they write something off the "top of their heads" they can find a reference for it when asked. This is written by amateurs which is why we need references up front and not after someone questions it. Student7 (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

-

your examples are childish and your explanation of of protocol is avoiding the topic. the logic i noted is the same logic used by business analysts every day when they identify competitors of companies or industries. all the data is there. all i did was apply common sense logic to existing data.

i don't have problems handing the protocol. i have trouble with your childish application of them. you are using them instead of your brain.

how do we elevate this to someone besides you mr. protocol? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.155.20.168 (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Please. Be WP:CIVIL.

It can be easily solved by finding a WP:RELY WP:FACT and placing a WP:FOOT there. If you haven't read those several policies, it would be useful to do so. I follow them, mostly and am rarely challenged. Facts are good. Speculation isn't. Student7 (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

you smug idiot, something being published doesn't make it a fact - pull your brain out so it can get some air... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.155.20.168 (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

While I believe your logic above appears sound, we can not use it here on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, we report what others say, we do not use logic, put different pieces of information together, come to a conclusion about it and report it as fact. The policy on original research says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." That is what you have done and it is not allowed, we need to have someone else report the information in a reliable source first and then we can include it here. Hope this helps explain why we need a source for the information. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 18:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Why the big dispute over GEICO and USAA? And why the rudeness? Mr. anonymous IP, please knock off the hostility; we work by consensus here and it usually gets things right eventually. In the meantime, please turn down the heat on this issue; consensus editing doesn't work when folks are needlessly upset.

Having said that, I agree it's just plain obvious GEICO and USAA are major competitors. If someone wants a footnote for this, here's a Google news archive search for USAA + GEICO:[1] There are 100s of articles returned; many aren't relevant (insurance industry class actions, etc.) but there are sure to be multiple good sources in that list.

I encourage one of you to follow up on this link. Furthermore, if Buffett has said something interesting about USAA's business model, it might be useful to quote (and cite) it in the article. If you have problems with wiki-markup for citations, just leave the chunk of text here with the link and someone will take it from there.

In the meantime, save the emotion for really "important" wikidramas like rewriting the history of Gibraltar.

Cheers, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Further support for using policy, instead of (dubiously) re-inventing the wheel for the USAA article. A line of thinking may be flawed, yet still considered to be logical to an individual (not indicating that is the case in the above aggressor's comments). Verifiability is the key to any successful encyclopedia, and this one has excelled thru consensus, rather than bullying, intimimation, Internet Tough Guy language or independent action. Student7 is both supported historically and here in his editing actions. Kudos. LeyteWolfer (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Disambiguation

The page titled USAA be converted to a disambiguation page. Mediation on this matter is requested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.97.142 (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I have looked and I cannot find any articles that currently exist on Wikipedia that use the initials USAA. Can you show me what articles we need to disambiguate? ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 14:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I went back and looked again and found 4 articles that it would be possible to use USAA as an acronym for them

• United States Armor Association - The article does not use the initials USAA
• United States Army Aviation - Redirect to United States Army Aviation Branch, The article does not use the initials USAA
• US Air Arena - redirect to Capital Centre, the article does not use the initials USAA
• US Airways Attache - Redirect to US Airways, the article does not use the initials USAA

There might be others that I have not found yet, what articles are you thinking need to be disambiguated? ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 15:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

In your original post that I undid because you had changed someones comments, you mentioned some other organizations.

• US Air Hockey Association, I see in the Air hockey page where USAA is used as the acronym for the association, but there is no article for the association at this time, but it might be something that could be disambiguated.
• US Achievement Academy, there is currently no article on this subject either. I see on their website where they use USAA to shorten their name. But I can not find any articles that a disambiguation entry would even point to.
• US Air Ambulance, again no article and I can not find anything on their website that they use USAA to describe themselves. Nothing to disambiguate here either.
• US Apnea Association, there is currently no article on this subject either. I see on their website where they use USAA to shorten their name. But I can not find any articles that a disambiguation entry would even point to.
• US Arm Wrestling Association, there is currently no article on this subject either. I see on their website where they use USAA to shorten their name. But I can not find any articles that a disambiguation entry would even point to.
• US Sarpo Association or did you mean United Sarpo Association, there is currently no article on this subject either. I see on their website where they use USAA to shorten their name. But I can not find any articles that a disambiguation entry would even point to.

Based on these we still do not need a disambiguation page. At the most we could add a hatnote at the top of the page that explains this article is about the banking/insurance company and if you are looking for the US Air Hockey Association goto the Air hockey page. I am not sure even that is necessary but I see no reason to object if it is done. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 18:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you're spending a tremendous amount of your valuable time to respond to what is likely a very old banned troll. 66.69.73.71 (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyway look at IBM (disambiguation). USAA (and IBM) most likely own the trademark initials. The company is the most prominent user of the name even without the trademark ownership. So renaming the page should be a last resort IMO. Student7 (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Large Building

[Copied from my (srich32977) userpage] Why did you take out the building information? If it is because you can't find refernces then all I have to say is that there used to be references (things roll of the web you know...). That data was there for many years and would not have lasted if it couldn't be backed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.155.20.168 (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not like peacock words and puffery, which "one of the largest" certainly is. Also, verification is required (but this is more honored in the breach than in following.) The term single occupancy was vague in that several other single occupancy buildings are larger. (See: [[2]].) Personally, I've been a member of USAA for 20 plus years and they are the best; however, I want Wikipedia to be the best too. (PS: I'm copying these comments to the USAA Talk Page. That way anyone can take info from the List link I've provided and put it onto the USAA page if they (or you) wish.)--S. Rich 03:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Executive compensation

This is always important for any organization. Are the top executives "fairly" compensated, usually much less of an issue than "are top executives overcompensated with respect to the rest of the industry." Particularly important for USAA since they are supposed to be a "mutual" company for the benefit of its customers and not for profit. i.e. Does the company exist mainly to benefit insiders and not the customers.

An items was erased that stated "Mr. Josue Robles earned 2.15 million dollars in 2009..[3]". Another ref copies it or was copied by it. http://www.wopular.com/usaas-ceo-took-home-215-million-2009. So it is up there. We need to find an online ref which accurately reproduces these reports which are required to be filed and reproduce top salaries here. It is useful information. On a company which supposedly benefits only its customers, it is about the only measurement that can be applied, since "net income" is not particularly useful - the company overcharges at the beginning of the year and returns it to customers at the end!

Unsurprisingly, there are a lot of people associated with the company (or any company, I suppose) who don't want to see that here what with average levels for CEOs being extremely outsized this past decade or so. Student7 (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

My two bits -- If USAA has 2 million members/customers, then Robles' compensation equates to 1 dollar per member. Should the compensation be reduced to 1 million per year so that members get a 50 cent refund? What these high compensation arguments amount to is "So-and-so is getting too much money [compared to what I get]." For such a large organization, he's getting a fair amount, especially when compared to other persons, such as major league baseball players, etc. This issue the rife with POV, and Wikipedia should stay away from it. Finally, USAA customers are overall extremely happy with it. As an insurance agency, it charges far less in premiums and it defends its policy holders in court with steadfastness. --S. Rich (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Insiders

I would encourage anyone reading this who works for USAA to feel free to identify yourself as such on this talk page and discuss ways of improving the article. You can use a pseudonym; nobody cares about who you are, just that you are an insider. The reason this is important is twofold; first, insiders can often identify errors that other editors would not catch. Of course we then need to verify the info using reliable sources, but we wouldn't know to look unless someone raises a flag. Of course don't want the USAA article to look like an advertisement or PR release, so it is best for insiders to bring up proposed changes on the talk page rather than directly editing the article. That way there are no conflict of interest issues. Again, insider participation is welcome, if done the right way. Guy Macon (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I, too, join in the call for USAA insider editors to let us know who you are. As a USAA member and Wikipedian, I hope you will do so. The guidelines given in Wikipedia:COI#Declaring_an_interest are clear and simple. Moreover, by declaring your "COI", you are welcome to contribute and your edits will enjoy a higher level of creditability. --S. Rich (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

USAA blog cn tags?

I wonder if tagging recent edits as cn is necessary or appropriate. Perhaps a {Primary source claim} tag is the better template, if any is needed. Why do I wonder? Although the references are titled and styled as blogs, they clearly come from USAA.com. In this regard, the material is obscuring the line (or pushing the envelope) between company PR and the free-wheeling world of blogging. While PR releases and materials may have COI taint, it is fairly safe to assume -- in good faith -- that in most corporate advertising and PR that the factual basis of the material is sound. If this is so, then the recent USAA "blog" material should be considered WP:RS. --S. Rich (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I concur with the "corporate release"/good faith assumption. I am surprised that USAA doesn't have anything that looks better than a "blog" for online reference for this article. Student7 (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I think "USAA Website" would be a good title for labeling a blog or press release on the official USAA website. That makes it clear that we are saying "USAA says X" with no implication about whether X is true or false.

I agree that this is an exception to the no blogs rule. The reason we don't allow blogs as citations is because I could create a USAA blog, write in it that USAA is a front for the Flat Earth Society, and then use the blog as a citation "proving" the connection. Clearly not the case if the blog is on the USAA website.

For other citations of blogs, I personally prefer "weblog." Guy Macon (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I also concur that non-controversial press releases (especially from public companies) are a WP:RS as a WP:primary source. Leef5 (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed that tags, based upon clear consensus. If anyone disagrees, please discuss your reasoning. Thanks! Guy Macon (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

the official usaa policy is that no employee, acting on behalf of usaa as an assigned or implied duty, do anything to the usaa wiki entry - source, a usaa insider. no reference to prove this statement... ALSO you don't have to assume good faith since between 50 state regulators, numerous federal regulators, city regulators, and county regulators the website and all press releases are monitored daily for bad faith. Ditto plaintiff attorneys seeking law suit opportunities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.24.24.150 (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

If any USAA employee in a position to influence policy is reading this, please reconsider the above-described policy. Far better would be to have an official USAA spokesperson helping us to correct errors in the article. This does not violate Wikipedia policy as long as you identify the fact that you are an insider (and that's all you have to reveal - you can otherwise be anonymous). Obviously we don't want this article to be a PR fluff piece or an ad for USAA, but it also isn't in anyone's interest to let factual errors remain in the article or to let some disgruntled ex-employee or ex-customer sneak in something misleading without being challenged. Guy Macon (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm an insider

I've been undoing attacks, correctiing clear errors, and attempting to clarify the messages on the USAA wiki for over 6 years. I've also run multiple tests in the process. When people know that I'm a usaa employee they emerge from thin air to scream about POV and COI. When I contribute the same messages/content with no apparent affiliation I get no reaction. I have done multiple tests with the same result. Knowing I'm an insider automatically brings friction regardless of wording.

There have been a few era's of evolution for the usaa wiki entry. Era 1. RJK personal vendetta against usaa. Era 2. data, data,data: for a while the entry was a blob of data with no clear or flowing messages. just lots of stuff. trying to remove it and make it readable (not marketing tripe) was soundly rebuffed with the argument that more data is better. when i tried removing big chunks and tried revising, i was accused of violating wiki rules and making it sound like a marketing brochure. apparently it was/is okay to add 1,000 words in one edit but not acceptable to remove or change 1,000 words in one edit. eventually somebody that was being a major obstacle to my changes manned up and did a major edit and restructure (essentially where we are today) which is still weak, still has overlaps, and still has lots of useless data. do you really want to know the usaa IT ranking every year or is it time to say "usaa IT was ranked in the top 100 best places to work most of the last 10 years and was ranked first in 2010". Era 3. everything must have a reference. this revealed several flaws in wiki rules (or at least interpretation of wiki rules). things that once had references, lost their references as news sites failed or were restructured. things that are accepted by the business world are not accepted by wiki authors. example: people in the business world consider the top 5 or top 10 in an industry to be competitors. yet, wiki editors DEMANDED/DEMAND a reference that calls out the top 5 as competitors. people in the business world consider two companies, in the same industry (say banking), that target the same customers, with the same products to be competitors, but on wiki you can't say that unless you have a reference that says that. stupid. are two football teams in the big 12 competitors? are the top ten 10 teams competitors for the national championship? Era 4. who works for usaa. being a private culture usaa doesn't say we fired someone or hired someone. yet 23,000 employees and many thousand contractors knew that roger chaco was chief marketing officer for two years, then left but was never noted on the wiki entry because there was not a public reference. i'm personnally pleased with the recent change to just having chairman and ceo, though i would have the ceo first because the chairman is minor in impact compared to the ceo - maybe not true for a publically traded company, but definitely true for usaa... (sorry, no refernce document to validate this POV/COI opinion). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.24.24.150 (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for identifying yourself as an employee. I appreciate your monitoring the article over the years to ensure wrong data rm. I am sorry you are experiencing frustration. We are not professional editors. Nor are we paid (!).

Standards have been differently enforced over the years. We are now trying to improve quality of articles by ensuring that proper referencing has been done instead of "top-of-the-head" observations by sometimes well-meant editors, other times, by downright vandals.

I might ask by way of retaliation why in the devil USAA, unlike any other large organization on the face of the planet, has an "official" page, supposedly representing the views of the company, labeled "blog?" That is, to put the prettiest face on it, unprofessional.

Are we to "decide" by voting, or something, who USAA's rivals are? If USAA is really a large firm, why don't the records of professionals who review USAA and other companies, show this? Again, alone of all the companies in the US, only some companies show up as rivals, but others, who are rivals, don't? Why do you suppose that is?

The latter is beginning to sound like some high school articles I watch, where the kids think that every high school in the district is their "closest rival." None of the kids really grasps which school is truly a "rival" or maybe none is. They never have a reference either. Student7 (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

BLOG: This is not the place to ask why the official USAA page has a blog. This page is for discussing topics relating to improving the USAA article only.

INSIDERS: Yes, insiders do get extra scrutiny. I see no evidence of it in this case but I think everyone understands that some insiders want to turn articles into ads and thus need to be watched. And yes, some Wikipedia editors are jerks and identifying yourself as an insider can set them off. The answer to that is not to hide your insider status but instead to use Wikipedia's existing procedures to have users who act like jerks warned, and if they persist, blocked. I, like many other Wikipedia editors, welcome insiders who want to improve articles. Welcome!

THINGS WE KNOW TO BE TRUE BUT HAVE NO REFERENCE FOR: I have the following quote on my web page:

"If Wikipedia had been available around the fourth century B.C., it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact and without qualification. And it would have reported the views of Eratosthenes (who correctly determined the earth's circumference in 240BC) either as controversial, or a fringe view. Similarly if available in Galileo's time, it would have reported the view that the sun goes round the earth as a fact, and Galileo's view would have been rejected as 'original research'. Of course, if there is a popularly held or notable view that the earth is flat, Wikipedia reports this view. But it does not report it as true. It reports only on what its adherents believe, the history of the view, and its notable or prominent adherents. Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free-thought. Which is A Good Thing." --WP:FLAT

The threshold for including material in Wikipedia is that it is verifiable, not that we know it to be true. The reader must be able to check that the material has already been published by a reliable source. Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. Thus we can only repeat what a reliable source says about whether someone currently works for USAA (The USAA website is a reliable source for who works at USAA).

Any assumptions concerning the relative importance of the Chairman of the Board vs. the CEO need to be sourced or removed. It's OK to make such assumptions about publicly traded companies based upon how publicly traded companies are, by law, structured, but for a privately owned company we cannot assume such things. For all we know, the janitor might be running the place.

PAST VENDETTA: This is one of the worst things that can happen to a Wikipedia article - far worse than having an article a PR fluff piece or a blatant advertising. If it ever happens again, bring it up on the administrators' noticeboard and the person doing it will get banned.

MORE DATA BETTER?: Sorry to hear that improvements to the page were rebuffed. Please try again, and if someone tries to force an obviously inferior article we will deal with that. But make sure that everything is referenced and has a neutral point of view. If in doubt, discuss the proposed content on the talk page.

BTW, I am neither an insider or a customer of USAA. I started monitoring this page because a friend in the military mentioned how happy they were with USAA and that many people in his unit are USAA members. Guy Macon (talk) 07:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Eliminating the competition

To help understand a business, it is important to know, among other things, who they are competing against. This was entered a long time ago in this article. I deleted numerous other attempts since they were "top of the head" remarks and unreferenced. Just found a ref for them in the annual report and re-inserted, only to have an editor rm them because he couldn't find the subsection in a couple of other articles.

They are currently upgrading the outline, which hasn't been done since for at least five years. The old one is truly antiquated, like most outlines in Wikipedia, alas.

Anyway, here is the deleted material under banking:

"Major banking competitors include Bank of America-Military Bank, Pentagon Federal Credit Union,(reference)Choosing the right ATM in Germany a high-stakes decision, Stars and Stripes, March 23, 2005 retrieved September 24, 2008(end reference) and the Navy Federal Credit Union."

Here is the deleted material under its own subsection which has been cut back:

(subsection)"==Competition== ..........

Major property and casualty insurance competitors include Nationwide, and State Farm.(reference name="hoover")"USAA · San Antonio, TX United States". hoovers.com. 2010-04-14. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)(endref)

Other competitors were Geico, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, New York Life, MetLife, Fidelity, and Charles Schwab.(reference)"How WE Serve You". Serving You Through Life. San Antonio, Texas. 2010. p. 10.(end reference)"

This, of course, should all be in here. Except for financial figures, it has to be one of the most important things about a business. Probably more important than who the officers are, for example. Student7 (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

When I made the decision to delete the material. I looked at the Wikipedia pages of three competitors picked at random (ESL Federal Credit Union, Pentagon Federal Credit Union Foundation, and Bank of America) and found no competition section. Would you like to do a more comprehensive survey and report the results? If a signioficant percentage have competition sections, then I would not oppose one for USAA as well. Either that or explain why USAA and USAA alone requires such a section. Guy Macon (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps we should create a Wikipedia category? Guy Macon (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is not really a valid argument. This is not a copy of any other article, nor should follow their practices when the practices eliminate useful information. Competitors define a company. Without them, the company would be a lot different. This is why all serious business analysts list competitors. Like Hoover, for example. Student7 (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Student7, Ignoring for the moment that Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is not a Wikipedia Policy or Guideline, is doesn't say what you think is says. Read the "Precedent in usage" section again.

Wikipedia is not a business analysis site. It is an encyclopedia. Every business has competitors. Again I ask, what is special about USAA or USAA's competition that requires the USAA page to be treated differently from that of any other business?

I agree with Student7 in that the basis for removing the competitors section that other articles don't have, is not a solid argument. There is some useful discussion going on over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Companies/Guidelines#Suggested_Structure and I brought up this competitor issue. If we have published guidelines on whether or not competitors should be included, then that becomes our basis for inclusion/exclusion rather than relying on precedence of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Leef5 (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Leef5, thanks for the link. I will go there after writing this. The problem ,as I mentioned above, is that Every business has competitors. The arguments that Student7 has presented are equally valid arguments for a competitor's section in every article about a company. And what about musicians or video games? Those have competition as well. Guy Macon (talk)

Hi folks, drawn in to this via it being raised over on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Companies/Guidelines#Suggested_Structure. The only policies we have to follow are NPOV/RS/V. For many companies NPOV competitor information is available from RS/V sources and there's really no basis for excluding it. I'd suggest the main reason it hasn't been included is that a lot of the type of sources people tend to used in wikipedia (ie news media) don't tend to cover this. Professional publications (which often cost money) do. There's no reason it can't be included in every company article that has RS/V sources for it. At present I'm including it in some draft guidelines, but any input, for or against, is welcome over on that talk page. --Icerat (talk) 13:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be enought support for inclusion that I am putting the material back while we discuss it and seek full consensus. Guy Macon (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

First, I am employeed by USAA. I am in mid-management. I'm not in corp comm or public relations. I do not have authority, approval or permission to represent USAA here or in public. These are my thoughts, not USAA thoughts. To me an article about a company should be about the company - not about other companies. For one, who constitutes a competitor is a debateable issue. Two, competitors change. Three, in fact I attempted to add several competitors to make the section "pure and complete" since it was and is a near meaningless section at this point - the adds were rejected for the two reasons noted. I favor creating a new article for each industry (for example "auto insurance industry" where the top 20 companies (by revenue) are listed and described in brief) and then pointing to the "industry" page. There is less argument about who sells "auto insurance". Revenue tends to be quantifiable as well - less argument. This debate is not new. I lost to Student7 and Swizzles years ago so I went and added competitors sections to each company that was in the USAA article. I thought it ironic that people appeared from thin air to reject the newly added competitor sections and argue against listing competitors! I told them that if they removed the competitor section from USAA I would remove the competitor section from "their" company's article. Alas, they were not that motivated... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.128.142.21 (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The above is a great example of how an insider can self-identify and give the reader enough information to consider any possible bias (we all have bias, of course). Thanks!

OK, here are the ground rules for resolving this sort of question (forgive me if you know all of this already). First, read WP:CONS and WP:CYCLE. That's our roadmap. The goal here is not to have winners and losers but to come to an agreement as to what is best for the Wikipedia article.

I have searched the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and there is nothing that say we cant have the section and nothing that says we must have the section, so the question is what is best for the article.

I think my question as to why it is that so many Wikipedia articles do not have such a section is a fair one. We are not bound by what is or is not in other articles, but you have to wonder why all of the hundreds of editors who have worked on those articles saw no need for such a section. Any comments or speculation as to why this is? Guy Macon (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

same usaa person here again. speculation is free...

1.) it is crass to talk about a competitor when desribing a company (a lot of people really don't like it based on the comments i've seen. there is enough fighting in the marketplace without bringing it to wikipedia).

2.) it is hard to select competitors. me being a simpleton considers the major competitors to be the top 10 companies (revenue) selling the same product (ex auto insurance). but frankly, USAA is pawn compared to State Farm, and State Farm doesn't care about USAA, so we are competitors but neither of us focuses on the other and SF certainly doesn't change strategy because of usaa. my rather long point is that it is hard to identify true competitors especially if you must have a reference to substantiate the opinion (not all references are equal, but wikipedia essentially treats all non-blog references except POV sources as if they are equal. some sources are much more credible than others. analyst statements at WSJ = typically good. analyst statements at small city papers = often questionable). also, a company like usaa competes in P&C insurance, life insurance, banking, investing, and fin advice, but some companies like say GEICO just offer P&C insurance so we are only partial competitors... complex. Also, we are a niche market company (military) so lots of americans can't even be our customers. are we really a competitor for a company that will insure any of 310M american.

3.) does it do an article justice by listing every company that sells auto insurance (there are hundreds!)? no it doesn't. it would overwhelm the article. on the other hand there is a company in nebraska that only sells auto insurance to military officers in nebraska and they are tough competitors, but that is only germane to a few hundred readers (military officers in nebraska) and that doesn't do the article justice either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.24.24.150 (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

OK folks, I am looking for a consensus here. Delete the competition section or leave it in? Please comment. Guy Macon (talk) 07:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Can't determine company direction without addressing the competition. Competition determines everything including efficiency per employee, pay, product offerings, etc. Once the company decided it was autonomous and not member-responsive, it went in whatever direction it wanted. But not without an eye to the competition. Show me a company with its head in the clouds, and I will show you a "former" company! :) Student7 (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

usaa employee says "i don't care". student7 is correct to some degree, must consider competitors, on the other hand, the section in the usaa entry is essentially meaningless. what does it reveal? what does it tell you that isn't obvious? does it really make the article better. not in my opinion. how about usaa's competitors? what do the same sections reveal about usaa in those articles? .... nothing. wasted space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.155.19.197 (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

usaa employee again. hey student7, many of the "competitors" listed in the usaa section don't have a competition section in their articles. if you are such a beacon of rightness you should be busy creating sections in those articles. i question your neutrality! i'm not joking. are you a disgruntled customer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.155.19.197 (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read this Wikipedia Policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Please try to the best of your ability to explain and resolve the conflict, not cause more conflict, and so give others the opportunity to reply in kind. The goal here is to reach consensus. Also, please sign your posts with four "~" characters.

So let me bring this back to the issue at hand:

ARGUMENTS FOR KEEPING THE COMPETITION SECTION: Personal preference, assertion that we cannot determine company direction without it (Counterargument: Wikipedia is not here to assess company directions), assertion that USAA will fail if they don't keep an eye on the competition (Counterargument: Wikipedia is not here to help them do that. They do that internally without our help).

ARGUMENTS FOR REMOVING THE COMPETITION SECTION: Most other business articles on Wikipedia don't have it (Counterargument: we aren't bound by what other articles do). Fairness/Bias issue - listing competitors here while not listing USAA on competitors pages gives the competitors an undue advantage (No counterargument).

CONSENSUS SO FAR: Two Three for removal, one for retention. Input from other editors is invited. Guy Macon (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Remove -- separate articles for insurance companies/brokerages/banks/travel advisors etc. in the US is appropriate, but listing competition in one particular article is not appropriate. Why do I mention insurance, brokerage, banking, travel? Because various units of USAA engage in these activities. Do the "competitors" do so as well? I doubt it, so comparisons are apples and kumquats.--S. Rich (talk) 07:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be enough of a consensus for me to remove it temporarily while we discuss this, but please do not assume that the decision is final. It is common practice on Wikipedia to make such temporary decisions based upon a rough consensus. A single click can put the material back in if consensus starts leaning the other way. Guy Macon (talk) 08:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

1) We are a tertiary reference. Facts don't have to mean anything. They mean whatever the reader decides they mean. But they are important facts.

2) Having said that, the "competitors" I added were from a USAA pub, not really the best source, but maybe accurate unless challenged on content. Who wants Joe's garage to determine that General Motors is a competitor of his? So Hoover trumps USAA.

But Hoover data really shouldn't be ignored. It is in there because it is important. Hoover doesn't waste space. What amateurs think is not important. Competitors are important. IBM nearly disappeared in the 90s because of Compaq and Microsoft. It exists today as a totally different company. FW Woolworth is gone. The premier retailer of the early 19th century, Sears, has been replaced by Wal-Mart. K-Mart is a shadow of its former self, totally eclipsed by Wal-Mart. We cannot analyze these competitors but we can identify them for the serious reader. And we do that because we are an encyclopedia.

As far as information not being someplace else, this falls under WP:Other stuff exists or doesn't exist, as the case may be. It's sometimes useful to follow another article when they are breaking new ground, perhaps, but not useful when their material fails to keep up. All other articles can be wrong. In this case, they probably are. Student7 (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

usaa'er again (still not authorized or approved to comment publically - MY OPINION AND DOES NOT REFLECT USAA OPINION). Hoover is a credible source, but they don't put much effort into competitive analyis. They mostly just state facts. To get their really good work you have to pay. The public data related to competitors is very shallow... just my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.176.41.88 (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree about Hoover. But it is reliable. For any deep analysis you have to pay. But this is true of everything in Wikipedia. We just use reliable guides as is. A perceptive researcher can get a lot out of our articles. I now see that I was wrong to add in USAA's idea of competitors, but Hoover's list should be allowed. Student7 (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It has been a week since I asked for a consensus on whether the competition section should be removed, and the consensus is still three for removal, one for retention. Input from other editors is still invited, but it looks like we aren't going to have a competition section, making the question of which sources to use for the competition section moot. Guy Macon (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Excluding the "corporate" position, when I review this discussion I see three in support of keeping it (myself,leef5, student7) and two (yourself and S.Rich) for removal. --Icerat (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to go to a meeting, so I will review my count later. If I miscounted, I apologize; it was not intentional.

There is nothing in Wikipedia's policies that supports excluding the view of someone who is a USAA insider. To do so would discourage insiders from identifying themselves. This particular insider is not speaking as an official corporate voice, but even if an official USAA spokesperson joins our conversation, their view is just as valid as any other.

BTW, the rule is that if there is a tie in consensus, the page stays the way it was before the disagreement over content arose, so if someone want to put the competition section back while we discuss this further, nobody should have a problem with that. Guy Macon (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

USAAer again. A side note that might be interesting, I have a meeting with Gary Hoover next week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.155.19.197 (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Funnily enough, the Hoover's page has a competition section. :-) --Icerat (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Competitor information is useful, however maybe a better way to do is via categories? For example, if I want to see who they compete in the life insurance business, clicking on that category will net me the list of WP articles with that category. However I realize this will only be useful for competitors that have 1) Have an article written on them, and 2) its categorized appropriately. I'm on the fence on this one - as long as we aren't breaching WP:LENGTH issues, I would lean towards inclusion.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 16:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

If we count your "I would lean towards inclusion" an "include" it looks like we have a three to three tie on consensus. So let's see if there is a way of making everybody happy. I for one would have no problem with a competition section if the other competitors had one. That's a lot of effort though, and at each page we would have to make sure consensus supports the addition. On the other hand, Leef5's idea of a category accomplishes the same thing and does not require consensus at the individual page level. Someone could object and seek consensus on the new category's talk page to remove it, of course. As for competitors that don't have an article written on them, that's easily fixed by creating stub articles. Anyone have any commebnts for/against Leef5's idea? Guy Macon (talk) 01:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if this is in Hoover, but we should probably rank the company with other companies by several factors: number of people served is less important than amount of insurance coverage. With several lines, this might include several rankings. e.g. "USAA ranks seventh in the nation for auto insurance coverage." This implies competition without actually mentioning a competitor, real or imagined. And it enhances the readers appreciation of what s/he is reading. How important is the company in the overall scheme of things. It is probably first in covering US servicepeople! Is that automatic puffery?  :) Student7 (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

And, condensed as much as possible into a sentence, should probably be in the lead. Student7 (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Ate dinner with Gary Hoover. The man has an insane energy level and a probing mind. For the record, he didn't start hoovers.com. A friend of his did it. Must be good friends to do all the work then name it after you buddy. Hoover did provide guidance and oversight. Thought that was an interesting tid bit... <usaa'er that will remain anon>

Concerning using "industry ranking", it is the easiest method to defend, but for niche or boutique companies (like USAA, credit unions) it is not relevant. Also, industry rankings don't work very well for customer owned (mutuals, URIEs like USAA, State Farm) and private companies (GEICO, Fidelity, Schwab) because they aren't necessarily driven by profit, net worth, or stock price. For example, everybody in the P&C industry knows that GEICO is not driven by profit. GEICO is driven to generate cash flow then Berkshire-Hathaway invests the cash to increase net worth and stock price. Thus, they don't really care about their 20+% annual customer turnover. Run lean and produce cash!!! It is also the reason they can spend so much on advertising ($700M this year - more than progressive and allstate combined). < anon USAAer > — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.155.19.197 (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Subscriber Service Account

As a non-profit mutual, USAA would normally have to return all excess to its subscribers each year. It has found a legal way of getting around this (which is fine, business-wise, and smart IMO). I couldn't find a link to anything generalized that allows this. I don't know the correct legal name. But it seems that one line needs to be added to indicate that SSAs "get around" IRS provisions. (Sorry to sound negative. I mean it in a positive way!). Student7 (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

USAA is not, in any way, a "non-profit mutual". As is noted in the article, a couple of times, it is a reciprocal inter-insurance exchange; an entirely different legal construct. There is no attempt to "get around" tax laws; indeed, they contribute quite a bit more than their fair share. 173.175.110.176 (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the poster from 173.175.110.176. USAA is not a "non-profit mutual". You're probably looking for information like what's copied below from the Texas Insurance Code - found at [4]. There's nothing in what I read that says that USAA, as a reciprocal, is required to return it's non-encumbered surplus at the end of the year. State law does specify that USAA has to keep a minimum on hand but does not specify a maximum amount that may be retained.

Sec. 942.155. FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS. (a) An exchange shall maintain at all times an unencumbered surplus over and above all liabilities that is at least equal to the minimum capital stock and surplus required of a stock insurance company engaged in the same kinds of business.

(b) An exchange shall maintain at all times the reserves required by the laws of this state or by rules adopted by the commissioner to be maintained by stock insurance companies engaged in the same kinds of business.

(c) An exchange shall maintain the required assets as to:

(1) minimum surplus requirements, as provided by Section 822.204; and

(2) other funds, as provided by the provisions of Subchapter B, Chapter 424, other than Sections 424.052, 424.072, and 424.073.Swizzlez (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Student7, you are so funny. You argue over and over about the importance of having competitor info in the USAA article because it "reveals so much" then you take the two things out of the "stated mission" that drive our converstations and decisions almost every day because you want to remove "POV"... ha ha ha. once again you undo wikipedia with its own rules. keep up the good work. <unidentified insider> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.155.19.197 (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh? What about WP:MISSION?

BTW, this appears to be an WP:ATTACK.

The last time I edited was June 17 and before that in mid-May. Student7 (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I just placed a warning about personal attacks on User talk:207.155.19.197. Guy Macon (talk)

How are we doing?

I would like to solicit opinions on the quality of the USAA article. Is there any area where anyone thinks we need to improve it? Any biases? Any places where it either looks like a hatchet job by USAA's enemies/competitors or an advertising puff piece by USAA's PR department? Areas that need to be expanded? Reduced? Or is the general consensus that it is pretty good in its present state? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no continuation in "history" of the figures that were accumulated from past years, an easy task when we are replacing the figures with new ones. Some should be kept. "Gross" or whatever. There should be a table of revenue someplace reflecting past performance, total members, total revenue. Student7 (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Strongly agree. That would be a real improvement to the article. Guy Macon (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company

I was going over possible areas that this article might be expanded/updated (ie: including a something about the insurance subsidiaries, given USAA's unique structure) and came across a reference to a Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company. Unfortunately there seems to be little information out there about this subsidiary as opposed to the other main subs, e.g. USAA P&C, USAA County Mututal & USAA Lloyds.

What little information I did come across leads me to believe it might it be the P&C subsidiary that handles high-risk clients or offers a lower level of service...especially since it appears to issue policies under the Garrison name, not USAA.

Google search is not much help, because it just returns a slew of USAA.com websites or "spam mirrors". Sigh.. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 08:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Same experience I had with "Foremost" part of Farmers Group. There is "some sort" of connection. USAA passes manufactured home apps off to Foremost, for example. Can't find exact relationship spelled out. Student7 (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I know that I qualify for USAA P&C insurance from my Father, who was a enlisted man in the Air Force. My insurance comes from Garrison, although on my policy itself its still says I have a participating policy eligble for dividends etc. Prehaps Garrision is for those who qualify for USAA only via thier parents? Can any other members with such a policy commnet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.162.99.178 (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

In conversation with someone who recently joined USAA (which, of course, cannot be used in the article because it is original research) I was told that the "close family member is/was in the military" rule applies to insurance, but anyone can open a banking account. If someone has a citation to a reliable source confirming this, it would be a useful addition to the USAA article. Guy Macon (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Federal banking law requires that anyone be able to open a simple checking or savings account, and I believe they market themselves in the San Antonio area to that effect (where the only physical bank branch is located). I'll look to see if I can't dig something up to that effect. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 14:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that it works like this: USAA is for officers, USAA CIC is for descendants of officers. USAA GIC is for enlisted. Garrison is for descendents of USAA CIC and USAA GIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.92.138.107 (talk) 04:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

HRC Survey

IP editor's edit summary says: Deleted (as not responding to rating) in wikipedia summary as other companies that did not respond to rating nevertheless received above-zero scores. Those that did not respond to survey are noted in italics.) This is a little unclear in two respects: 1. What is meant by "wikipedia summary"? My edit summary? and 2. What italics? The Appendix B is a bit difficult to read because of small print, but I do not see any explanation for italics. In any event, the "(as not responding to rating [sic - actual edit said survey])" notation in the article should remain. The intro to HRC's Appendix B says companies not responding were listed in grey, and that non-responders may have received a rating from non-survey info sources. In the case of USAA, the various rating categories are blank, indicating that no non-survey sources were used. (Compare with other entries that are grey, but have non-zero ratings.) To repeat the "zero" rating in Wikipedia without proper notation as to what this means is injecting POV. Also, seeking to interpret the ratings for other companies as justification for the edit treads on WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTHESIS. --S. Rich (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. IP editor here. Sorry for the confusion about italics, I was actually looking at a different version. In any case, re the linked version: See page 12 - 15 for rating chart; Page 18 provides that "The HRC Foundation may rate businesses that have not submitted a survey this year if the business had submitted a survey in previous years and the information is determined to be accurate, or if the HRC Foundation has obtained sufficient information to provide an individual rating. In both cases, the HRC Foundation notifies the business of the rating and asks for any updates or clarification." HRC goes on to state "The HRC Foundation has spotlighted those Fortune 500 companies that, after repeated invitations, have never responded to the annual CEI survey. These 214 Fortune 500 companies are noted in grey in Appendix B and C along with unofficial CEI ratings."

Page 47 (Appendix B) states that ratings in grey are: "Unofficial rating of the Fortune 500 companies that have not responded to repeated invitations to the CEI survey. These ratings are based on publicly available information as well as information submitted to HRC from unofficial LGBT employee groups or individual employees."

There are numerous companies that did not respond to the survey (that are noted in grey) but that nonetheless have non-zero scores. You write: "In the case of USAA, the various rating categories are blank, indicating that no non-survey sources were used." This is incorrect. The fact that the various rating categories are blank means that USAA failed in every category, based on information USAA was able to obtain from 1) publicly available information as well as 2) information submitted to HRC from unofficial LGBT employee groups or individual employees.

In any case, to satisfy your concerns, I've amended the section as follows: "In 2012 USAA received an "unofficial" zero rating in the Human Rights Campaign's Corporate Equality Index, which measures equal treatment of gay and lesbian employees. USAA has never responded to survey requests from the HRC; therefore its rating is based on publicly available information and/or information submitted by individual employees or unofficial LGBT employee groups."

References

Hello IP. The fact that HRC assigns a zero percent rating, even in the absence of data, casts doubt on its' methodology. E.g., it could be looking at a blog, news article, discrimination lawsuit, phone call, email, or whatever. (Sources include "Individuals or unofficial LGBT employee groups that report information to the HRC Foundation.") But we have no idea what HRC is looking at! In such cases the assignment of 10-15 points/percent ends up comparing apples and oranges. (HRC tell us they evaluated several hundred survey responses -- but it does not tell us anything about the non-survey material that it looked at.) I see some of the grey category ratings where HRC it gives points in one or two categories, based on incomplete information, and the company gets the "low" rating. Not very objective. Not at all. (Indeed, it seems that HRC is seeking to penalize companies that don't respond to its' survey!) With this in mind, HRC should be tagged as a non-WP:RS.--S. Rich (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I just took a look at the methodology section and I am seeing problems that, in my opinion, cause this organization to fail to meet Wikipedia's standards for a reliable source. According to the stated methodology, a company that treats LGBT employees exactly the same as any other - same health benefits, etc. - but does not do anything special such as making special LGBT employee recruitment efforts (instead of recruiting everyone equally). using "certified LGBT suppliers" (instead of choosing suppliers without regard to race, religion, sexual orientation, etc), advertising with LGBT content or in LGBT media (instead of advertising to everyone equally) gets downgraded. On the other hand, by throwing some money at the issue (donating to or sponsoring LGBT organizations and events) they can get a higher rating, even though that has nothing to do with how employees are treated. I am also concerned about the downgrade an organization gets if it donates to the wrong groups -- again having nothing to do with how employees are treated.

Because of these problems, I am removing the section for not meeting Wikipedia's quality standards. As always, we can put the material back in if the consensus is that this is a reliable source; if anyone wishes to make that argument we can go to the reliable sources noticeboard and get the opinion of some experienced editors and administrators. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

IP editor here - I don't see how this is any different from the Fortune rankings, which are similarly based on a company returning surveys. The fact that USAA refuses to even return HRC surveys indicates its lack of concern for its LGBT employees. With that said, if USAA is going to use this wiki page to advertise its Fortune employer rankings, then the HRC rankings should be displayed as well. I'd like to take this to the noticeboard as you suggested.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.31.5 (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)‎

Just in case anyone reading this doesn't understand how these things work, right now there is no consensus for using or not using the HRC surveys, nor are the opinions of an IP user treated any differently than a registered user or administrator - everyone has to make their case using logic and evidence, as you can see above. That's how we arrive at a neutral article, neither a PR puff piece of a anti-USAA attack piece. So, we discuss it here, see in we can agree, and if not ask for help from the reliable sources noticeboard. Again, this is not so much a response to 209.6.31.5 as it is a note for the many folks who read these corporate Wikipedia pages.

OK, back to the subject at hand. By "the Fortune rankings" I assume you mean FORTUNE Magazine's "100 Best Companies to Work For" list. (The Fortune 500 is just a list of sizes). So, is it true that the Fortune list is "similarly based on a company returning surveys"?

"To pick the 100 Best Companies, Fortune partners with the Great Place to Work Institute to conduct the most extensive employee survey in corporate America. Three hundred forty-three companies participated in this year's survey. Two-thirds of a company's score is based on the results of the Institute's Trust Index survey, which is sent to a random sample of employees from each company. The survey asks questions related to their attitudes about the management's credibility, job satisfaction, and camaraderie. The other third of the scoring is based on the company's responses to the Institute's Culture Audit, which includes detailed questions about pay and benefit programs and a series of open-ended questions about hiring, communication, and diversity."

So yes, 1/3 of the fortune score it is based upon surveys that the comany fills out.. One key difference is that Fortune then publishes details the results. For example, they say that SAS provides child care at $410 a month, 90% coverage of the health insurance premium, unlimited sick days, a medical center, fitness center, natatorium, ending library, and a summer camp for children. These claims are no doubt based upon the survey, but if, in fact, SAS didn't have a lending library, there would be a backlash for telling a fib. Does HRC do the same?

Other differences: HRC downgrades a company for refusing to participate. Fortune does not list those who refuse to participate. Anyone can lodge an accusation at HRC, Fortune uses random sampling. Finally - to my mind the most important difference - Fortune does not upgrade or downgrade based upon political contributions. That's one of the main things that makes HRC not a reliable source; it measures a companies political positions rather than measuring how employees are treated. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Guy Macon's reply is well stated. Let me add that the Fortune 500 is based on gross revenue, which is an objective, empirical, verifiable figure based on SEC reports, audited by CPAs, signed under penalty of perjury. As Fortune has published the 500 list for years, it has a high reputation in the business community. It seeks to maintain that reputation when it publishes its' other lists. --S. Rich (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that he is referring to the Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For list. USAA is on both lists. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Survey's

This is just another example of why something is needed to shape or scope corporate entries. There are untold numbers of "surveys". I understand that this particular topic is an important topic to some people and they want to prosecute their agenda. but if companies responded to every survey that they were approached by they wouldn't acheive their mission.

at usaa we get hundreds of survey requests weekly - i mean this literally. the lack of boundaries for a corporate wiki entry is a problem. do readers and authors of wikipedia really want lists of THINGS not done by a company? for example: company x does not support the boy scouts, girl scouts, people for the protection of snails, the association for restoring wolves to new mexico, red cross, the toenail cancer society, etc. etc. etc.

as an employee of usaa i'm tired of the constant junk put in the entry - though i appreciate that over the years most (but not all) of the junk has been removed by the likes of student7, swizzlez, guy, etc. i don't see a better alternative for stopping vandalism. But, some scope for an entry would reduce wasted effort and conflict over what "should" belong in an entry. Hillcountrygrump (talk) 13:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Fired

If this is article is written like an advertizement then somebody should be fired because it is one sorry job of advertizing... how is it anybody can stick this label in the article and nobody refutes it? oh, no standards... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.24.24.150 (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all, someone has attempted to refute the assertion: You.

That's how Wikipedia works; someone makes a change, and if someone disagrees, we talk it out on the web page and try to reach a consensus.

So, is the page to much like an ad? I just looked at it, and it is a bit of a mix. Most of it is pretty neutral but a few places could use improvement. For example:

"USAA has since expanded to serve all members of the Armed Forces and all who served honorably in the US Armed Forces, as well as their immediate families, with property & casualty insurance, banking, life insurance, investment and financial planning products and services."

That reads like a USAA ad. A more neutral wording would be something like:

"USAA offers banking and insurance services to past and present members of the Armed Forces and their immediate families"

Another passage that reads like an add is:

"The company was one of the pioneers of direct marketing and most of its business is conducted over the Internet or telephone using employees instead of agents. Until the 1960s the bulk of its business was conducted via mail. In the late 1960s USAA began a transition from mail to phone based sales and service. A toll-free number was launched in 1978, and Internet sales and service were launched in 1999 via its website."

That "pioneers" bit is especially ad-like, but the whole passage contains a bunch of non-notable details. (They do business online and by phone? What a shock!)

A more neutral wording would be something like this:

"The company conducts business online, by mail, and by telephone."

Now you get to put forward your best arguments why you think it isn't too much like advertising. Remember, be calm, cool, logical, and fact-based, avoiding any hint of incivility, and remember to sign your posts as explained at the top of the editing page. Or you or someone else could reword those parts to be less like ads. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

guy, to be a member you did have to "honorably" serve. if you were dischareged dishonrably you are not eligible... the rules allow immediate family only. usaa does offer banking insurance, and investments to those folks. but people can walk off the street if they just want banking - cant get the other stuff. so how is any marketing?

just a few years ago many companies did not have web sites... since usaa does not have agents, as obvious as it seems to you mr smarty pants, from 1922 until 1965 usaa did business by mail. they were the first direct insurance company to go to 1-800 numbers in in 1965 and had the largest centralized call center in the usa (may still be true). i thought you guys were all about hate inside dope and history?

since few companies around today even existed in 1922, usaa may be a pioneer (among existing companies) of direct mass marketing, though i would think that sears and p&g got the jump on everyone. state farm was started in 1922 as well...

bottom line is i don't like wikipedia and most of the arrogant editors like you (stick you "be nice" where the sun don't shine) but an entry exists — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.155.19.197 (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Please be WP:CIVIL!

He does have a point about no agents which made it very unique. The only way to contact them until phones started to become less expensive in the late 60s, was by mail. I tried to include your suggestions. Moved the part about phone and internet to history from the lead, which did not totally meet your objections. But, yes, we do need specifics if we are going to improve the articles. Thanks, Guy! Student7 (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

top competitors

someone from Randolph brooks credit union added RBFCU as a top competitor to usaa. Hardly, just checked the numbers. Navy fed has $58 billion in assets, RBFCU has $6 billion, usaa has $66 billion. RBFCU is the 13th largest credit union and is one tenth the size of usaa. navy fed is #1 and military oriented - mostly. can make the argument that they are a key usaa competitor! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.123.141.75 (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on USAA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100701074629/http://www.mysanantonio.com:80/news/local_news/Speaker-to-be_has_deep_Republican_roots.html? to http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/Speaker-to-be_has_deep_Republican_roots.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101120080709/http://www.mysanantonio.com:80/news/MYSA062208_01A_USAARobles_3f11179_html15061.html to http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/MYSA062208_01A_USAARobles_3f11179_html15061.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070929110418/http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/stories/MYSA062807.03E.usaa0628.2b34a2f.html to http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/stories/MYSA062807.03E.usaa0628.2b34a2f.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090613032822/http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com:80/SmartSpending/ConsumerActionGuide/10-companies-that-treat-you-right.aspx?slide-number=10 to http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SmartSpending/ConsumerActionGuide/10-companies-that-treat-you-right.aspx?slide-number=10

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on USAA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061115134251/http://realco.usaa.com/ to http://realco.usaa.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120606194308/http://www.afsa.org/USAID/USAA/USAAissues.cfm to http://www.afsa.org/USAID/USAA/USAAissues.cfm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.usaa.apply2jobs.com/profext/locations.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

A Consumers' co-operative?

Isn't USAA a consumers' co-operative?

If no, how does it differ from consumers' cooperatives?

If yes, why doesn't that term appear in this article?

Secondarily, I've heard that at least in the US if you buy insurance from virtually any company other than USAA and you keep it for more than about 3 years, you're stupid, because virtually all insurance companies other than USAA offer teaser rates to new customers and then jack up their rates. After the first year, an excessive portion of what you pay goes for outsized executive compensation and dividends to stockholders. Does anyone know any credible documentation for or against this claim?

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Why "advert"?

@Grayfell: The Wikipedia article on "Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems" says, "Any editor without a conflict of interest who sees a tag, but does not see the purported problem with the article and does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove the tag."

If you still feel this article should be tagged "{{advert|date=March 2017}}", please make an effort to fix the problems you see -- or at least explain here the alleged problems with a discussion of what you think should happen befor the "{{advert|date=March 2017}}" should be removed. Until then I support the effort of @Bongwarrior: to remove that tag.

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I added the tag back in 2017, and still think it applies. This is the very first sentence:

The United Services Automobile Association (USAA) is a San Antonio-based Fortune 500 diversified financial services group of companies including a Texas Department of Insurance-regulated reciprocal inter-insurance exchange and subsidiaries offering banking, investing, and insurance to people and families who serve, or served, in the United States Armed Forces.

In addition to being far, far too long, and confusing, it's also loaded with puffery. Listing "Fortune 500" as a routine adjective is promotional and undue.

Further, the article uses peacock terms like "pioneered".

It includes an overly-detailed subsection (Returning profits to the insured) supported only by promotional, primary sources. The section fails to contextualize why this information is encyclopedically significant.

The info in the "banking" subsection includes a useful source (from the NYT) but this source is incompletely summarized and fails to contextualize why this factoid is significant. It is also out-dated as this service is now relatively commonplace, even among smaller credit unions.

The subsection "Property, casualty, and life insurance" implies that USAA offers something special or rare, but cites only a single source which doesn't mention USAA at all. This is, at best, and WP:OR issue.

There are other examples that could be given. I lack the time to clean-up this article, but I still do not think it's appropriate to pretend this problem doesn't exist. Grayfell (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

USAA CIC

On 2020-06-05T21:38:29 user:2601:646:8e00:7ed3:b11c:c4b7:feb7:cbab changed "USAA-CIC is not an insurance exchange but rather a Delaware Insurance Corporation" to say that it is a "Texas Insurance Corporation".

The source for this claim allegedly remains the same:

"Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2017-08-23. Retrieved 2017-09-17.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)

I cannot find in this document where it says the state in which USAA CIC is incorporated. Moreover, I don't see why it matters.

I deleted that sentence. If you think it belongs, please provide a better source and explain why it matters. DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Removal of Advert Tag

Hello- I am new to Wikipedia so please forgive me for asking some basic questions. Also, I am an employee of USAA, although I don't feel as though I have any COI as this isn't a part of my job. I"m just a passionate employee of the brand, but I will leave that decision up the moderators and admins.

What brought me to setting up an account, I was reading the USAA description and saw that it an advertising flag attached, which made me curious. As I looked at other brand pages, BOA, Comcast etc.. I didn't see any advertising flag and the descriptions looks similar. I would love to better understand why this is attached and how i could help provide the right information to fix it.

I appreciate the guidance.

LostCreek111 (talk) 15:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

LostCreek111, as an employee of USAA, you definitely have a COI regardless of what whether you're paid to make changes or not. Therefore, per WP:COI, you should not be making any edits to this article. In regards to the "advert tag", it's there, because this article still reads somewhat promotional in nature. You have to remember, this is an encyclopedia that supposed to include basic facts about the company; it's not a venue to promote the company and what they are selling. I've removed some of the worst parts, but there still needs to be some clean-up. I would suggest not comparing this article to other articles and asking "Why"? The same people aren't necessarily editing the same articles, so those issues may have not been seen, yet. Anyway, I'd suggest you just leave this article alone and go edit some other articles that interest you. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Jauerback I appreciate the comment, and providing some recommendations. I'm still trying to capture how I can participate within this forum, and I won't edit the USAA page any longer, per the guidelines. Also, I agree with you 100% that the USAA page reads like an advertisement, but if no one takes a vested interest in cleaning up the page, how will it ever get cleaned up to provide value to visitors? As an example, under leaders it currently states that the Chairman of the Board is Admiral Tom Ford, USN (Ret.), which is incorrect. As i continue to look at how I can provide value to other pages, can I post suggestions to you, others or admins on how the USAA page can be modified to meet the proper guidelines? Again, I'm just trying to help. LostCreek111 (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

LostCreek111, I'd recommend to start by reading the COI message I left on your talk page. The message alone might answer your questions, but the links from it will provide more info than I could, specifically the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest page. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Jauerback Yes, I've been reading through the details. Thank you for being so kind to send me those links and answering some newbie questions. :-) LostCreek111 (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)