Talk:Public Storage/Archives/2014

Controversies

Concerned that recent additions to Public Storage article lack NPV and are unbalanced. User cites consumer reviews websites as sources. Also cites a "CompanyName+Sucks" Wordpress blog as a source. Uses incendiary language from such sources. Article needs cleanup. Amg123 (talk)AMG — Preceding undated comment added 14:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Surely it does need cleanup. Why don't you take out one item at a time and start a section on the talk page with a link to the diff? You took out some very bad material, it's true, but also a lot of perfectly well-sourced material that obviously should stay in. You ought to be more circumspect and give people a chance to comment on your deletions by using the talk page to talk about specific edits.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

As far as concerns about balance: if you think the article is "unbalanced" perhaps you can find objective pro-company sources that are not derived from the company itself to provide that balance. We're not particularly interested in providing balance; we're interested in providing accurate information as to the way this company does business. We are presenting information that is valuable to the users of Wikipedia who are seeking reliable information on the company - prospective customers and investors. The criticism that the article uses "incendiary" language is puzzling. Can you point to any such language, specifically? The use of "Publicstoragesucks" as a source is due to the fact that that website features information relevant to the Wikipedia entry. You are impugning a source because of the name of the website that info is found on, not because of the quality of the information found there. The fact that so many customers of Public Storage have very valid criticisms of the company is significant; where else would criticism of the company come from? We have seen the "controversies" section in many articles on Wikipedia. We are not interested in seeking out pro-company propaganda to add to this article; let them do that if they wish. We don't want to start a war over this article; let's work together on this thing; if you want to do some research on the subject and find "balanced" info and add that, go ahead. IWPCHI (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)IWPCHI

@IWPCHI: We need to give reliably sourced information due weight. That isn't necessarily the same as "providing accurate information as to the way this company does business". I've removed the auction section as it was extremely poorly sourced - this is the only source which comes close to being reliable, and it doesn't even mention this specific company at all! Even if we can verify that the company auctions off items from the first link, we need reliable sources that discuss it and the onus is on editors adding material to ensure that this is the case. It should be obvious that an activist blog is not going to be a suitable source anywhere on Wikipedia. How can you tell that "so many customers" ... "have very valid criticisms" of the company? The only way to do that is to provide sources - the insurance ones are good, but videos of people complaining on youtube aren't any use. (I came here after seeing this note at User talk:CorporateM ) SmartSE (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The remaining sources are local news stories in San Francisco and Charlotte. The text they support consumes more than half the article on an international business. There's a significant WEIGHT problem with using local press for international companies. I think we could stub the article (no sections) by summarizing the whole section in two sentences. CorporateM (Talk) 21:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done thoughts? I would be interested in knowing the outcome of the lawsuit, as that may influence whether/if/how to include it. (see my opinion on un-settled lawsuits here. CorporateM (Talk) 22:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

From Public Storage: The lawsuit was dropped by the Complainant, unsettled. Complainant recently refiled and the case is unresolved at this point. Please let me know if you would like me to upload a public government document verifying that the initial case was dropped. PSA1972 (talk)PSA1972 — Preceding undated comment added 22:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Failed lawsuits shouldn't be included unless there are sources discussing in detail how they failed. I've searched Factiva and haven't been able to find anything suggesting that the lawsuit was successful. If the case receives further coverage in the future it could be reintroduced, but at present it seems undue to include it. SmartSE (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I support user:Smartse's comments/edit. Waiting until the lawsuit is resolved and seeing if the outcome obtains reliable sources is established best practice, unless the sources verify the significance of the lawsuit overwhelmingly. Otherwise we end up covering speculative accusations that a company did XYZ, when a large number of such complaints turn out to be false or trivial. CorporateM (Talk) 00:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Request edit on 14 July 2014

Hi,

Can you please update the financial info from 2011. Would you like me to send that? What is your preferred source.

ADD: On August 14, 1972, Ken Volk and Wayne Hughes formed the small company that eventually became Public Storage. They built their first storage facility the same year.

TO REPLACE: was founded on August 14, 1972 from a $50,000 investment.[citation needed] It built its first self-storage facility in 1972.

WHY: Public Storage had two founders. I do not think the $50,000 is accurate.

REMOVE: The company was founded in 1971 by B. Wayne Hughes.

WHY: It is not accurate

REMOVE: and facilitate the purchase of insurance from Willis Insurance, a subsidiary of the British insurance firm Willis Group Holdings.[citation needed]

WHY: This is no longer accurate.

Regarding updated revenue numbers, because Public Storage is public and their 10-k filings are regulated, they are the most reliable and updated source available. I would encourage you to update those numbers and other infobox data freely, so long as you don't add an excessive products or executive list.

I am willing to remove anything that is unsourced and will do so now, however, we cannot add the proposed replacements until a proper independent, secondary source is provided for them. CorporateM (Talk) 22:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)