Talk:Public Storage

src: www.selfstoragespecialists.com

Video Talk:Public Storage

Requesting Update By Public Storage

Public Storage is requesting minor edits to the first sentence of the article. I would like to remove the first comma and substitute the word "is". I also would like to add the requested citation from the Wall Street Journal. If approved the first sentence would read:

Public Storage is a real estate investment trust (REIT) with headquarters in Glendale, CA.

I also would like to add more color about our locations by adding the paragraph below as the third on the page.

Public Storage has facilities in 40 states, with a large portion located in the coastal states. Because customers prefer to store in their own communities, the company has options in all types of neighborhoods and even in restored historic buildings, such as the first enclosed movie studio, where Charlie Chaplin got his start and in one of Henry Ford's first regional assembly plants on Lake Union in Seattle.

Please let me know how you would like me to proceed. Thank you for your time on this!PSA1972 (talk)PSA1972 -- Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your feedback. On the first sentence, there has been a "citation needed" for a while for the fact that Public Storage is a real estate investment trust (REIT) with headquarters in Glendale, CA. I was suggesting that a Wall Street Journal Article http://online.wsj.com/articles/public-storage-quarter-profit-rises-on-higher-rents-and-occupancy-1406851553 that verifies those details might work. If this doesn't work, is there another type of citation that might?

With the other info, I did include two references for each point. If you eliminate the Public Storage site and blog, the material still stands. Just throwing that out there.

Thank you again. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.115.102.146 (talk) 21:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh shoot, the reference to the locations of our facilities is supported by our website and a map page. We would be the original source for number of locations? This is the page that shows the states we're in. http://www.publicstorage.com/storage-facilities.aspx It may be that you still think this is off point. Just trying to build out our page a bit. Thanks!PSA1972 (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)PSA1972

I have added the WSJ source to verify the company's headquarters. If you have an independent source that calls Public Storage an REIT, please feel free to replace the Citation Needed tag with it. Regarding number of locations, a primary source from the company is acceptable for adding this to the infobox. Even if the map does not actually say "50 locations" WP:CALC allows us to use basic arithmetic. In the infobox code, you would just need to add "| locations = 50<ref></ref> and place the citation information between the two "ref" tags. CorporateM (Talk) 22:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Maps Talk:Public Storage

Recent edits

The very last paragraph of the "Self-storage and other services" section, presumably added by @Cullen328:, appears to be undue weight. The entire paragraph relies on a single, local source. The text "according to a 2010 report by KPIX-TV, a CBS station in San Francisco" is un-needed. The source is reliable enough to state plainly that consumers have complained and it reads like "according to, according to". According to PS' annual report only about 3% of PS' business is from insurance products, but we have almost as much space devoted to it as the other 90% of their business. PS also isn't itself an insurance company - it merely resells insurance products from a third-party. And I don't think it makes sense to include the number of robberies at just one location - there are more than 2000 Public Storage sites.

The main point of the source appears to be that PS' representatives are not properly licensed to sell insurance and that the insurance company they partner with (like most insurance companies sadly) has a habit of not paying obvious claims. CorporateM (Talk) 15:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree about exercising caution to avoid undue weight. I myself ensured some other negative facts about the company were kept in the article to keep it well-rounded, but this insurance paragraph does seem to drone on. Let's trim it back to the same size as the other negative facts and merge into the previous paragraph. Prhartcom (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

It is surprising to me that it is considered OK for the article to "drone on" about the REIT structure several times, but objections are raised to summarizing investigative journalism by a respected media outlet. My main criticism of the article is that it is strong on information of interest to investors but very weak on information of interest to consumers.

I say "citation needed" for the notion that most insurance companies fail to pay valid claims. That is an extraordinary claim that the insurance industry is a vast criminal conspiracy. Rather, it is this particular company that has chronic security problems and this particular company that chose to do business with a dubious insurance carrier. I will make it one of my ongoing goals as long as I edit Wikipedia to ensure that this well-referenced content is not scrubbed from this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

You make a good point if the sources truly support this (not just that one article). Now that I understand that your motivation is simply to have a well-rounded article, I agree that both consumer and investor information should be given appropriate focus if the sources are available. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I had a very quick look, and didn't find top quality sources on the issue, but there are several sources out there which seem to indicate that Public Storage have been getting some bad press regarding their insurance ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]), so some coverage of the matter would be helpful. Exactly how much coverage is an editorial decision based on the amount of coverage in reliable sources, and the quality and amount of those sources. Sometimes there isn't a quick and easy solution, and content needs to be worked at. In contentious issues, such as this, it can take longer than normal, but as long as everyone is civil, and working to the same end: a balanced and fair article, then a solution will be found - and when there are opposing editors looking at an issue, then the end result will usually be fair and balanced. It is actually rare that somebody becomes stubborn and irksome, or a edit fight breaks out, and sanctions need to be used - though those are the incidents that get attention! SilkTork ^{?Tea time} 18:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Remove last paragraph of the "Self-storage and other services" section as WP:UNDUE. Also, I had to chuckle slightly at the characterization of KPIX-TV as a "respected media outlet." IIRC this is the same local yokel 11 o'clock news outfit that erroneously "outed" Robin Williams at an AA meeting and produces hard-hitting candy cane stories on things like pranic healing. I agree KPIX meets the requirements of RS, but ... "respected media outlet?" Heh. LavaBaron (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course there is still the fact that insurance is such a small part of their business revenue. Perhaps more sources exist showing the consumer side of this company? Just wanted to say thanks again for the objective advice, SilkTork. I believe I will wind down my involvement here, but I have no doubt that CorporateM, who is the one most invested in seeing this article become a high-quality GA, will be able to work with all concerned to achieve this end. Cheers, all. Prhartcom (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose complete removal Like any source the press doesn't always get it right, but in the scope of things, this reporter actually verified things for themselves, rather than just repeating what a special interest group, company, or advocate said. Most of the sources provided by @SilkTork: don't look reliable to me. One of them for example is http://www.publicstorageinsurancelawsuit.com/, but I think if this source was removed, that would be a dam shame; it's a good source.

What I might suggest is taking it one step at-a-time. For example, I propose the following edit: "According to a 2010 report by KPIX-TV, a CBS station in San Francisco, many Public Storage customers have filed complaints with the Better Business Bureau regarding issues with insurance policies sold by Public Storage representatives." I don't think the long-winded attribution is necessary, when the source is reliable enough to just state it as a plain fact. CorporateM (Talk) 19:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Why do you consider it perfectly OK or even required to attribute within the body of the article other content that includes quotes but "long winded" to provide attribution here? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Prhartcom made the suggested edit above here, though it's still too early to tell if the change is stable. I also added another local source about insurance issues and integrated the KPIX source throughout the section, rather than having a single cite at the end.

I also wanted to suggest we trim the reference to the number of burglaries at a specific location: "Police reports confirm that 22 burglaries occurred at that Public Storage location in the previous year"

Typically when we use local sources, caution is exercised to avoid undue emphasis on local issues and we don't cover individual branches of international companies. Public Storage has more than 2000 locations and the number of burglaries at each one may vary greatly. The number of burglaries at this particular location is mentioned at the very bottom of the article and I have not found other RS' that suggest security is a widespread issue. The article is primarily referring to issues with insurance. CorporateM (Talk) 18:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the second paragraph of the "Insurance and damages" section needs to be completely re-written. There are three different television stations that have reported on problems: [6], [7], and [8]. There have been several class action suits, and the Florida 2014 case [9] is quite serious, and ongoing [10].

I suggest something like "Investigations by television stations in Kansas City, San Francisco, and Seattle found ... [common findings].[three footnotes] A 2014 class action lawsuit in Florida [footnote] has been delayed by charges of improper behavior by attorneys on both sides; a law firm defending Public Storage withdrew from the suit. [footnote]"

I'll also note that it's clear that PS's approach to damages is to say "talk to your insurance company". That's true even if PS could be considered at fault - for example, improperly securing a door to a storage unit, having HVAC problems that dump water into a unit, or failing to keep raccoons out of a storage unit - the response is, unfailingly, that this is a matter between the insurance company and the storage unit renter. Further, complaints about insurance almost inevitably seem to be about companies recommended by PS employees. -- John Broughton (??) 18:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @John Broughton:! I'll take a look at these sources this week and draft something up for discussion if nobody else jumps on it. CorporateM (Talk) 19:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@John Broughton: I whipped up something below based on your input. All three articles focus on unpaid burglary claims, but I think this one has the clearest explanation of exactly why claims were denied and why those may be poor reasons to deny claims. Something along these lines might maintain the current weight, while reducing redundancy, over-reliance on a single source, or poor use of quotations, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 17:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I've edited this down a bit, both for neutral language and WP:UNDUE concerns. I think that having these five sources will provide enough emphasis to readers that there may be larger problems - or not.

Also, I'm pulling off the collapsing templates. -- John Broughton (??) 23:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@John Broughton: I made some tweaks below. No objection to the weight, but I dislike language that isn't literal like "on the grounds" and I think including that many burglars replace the locks is necessary to explain why this policy leads to many consumers being unable to obtain reimbursement for legitimate burglaries. CorporateM (Talk) 02:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Many Public Storage customers have filed complaints with the Better Business Bureau regarding insurance policies sold by Public Storage representatives. Local news stations in California, Kansas, and Washington have reported on difficulties consumers had when filing insurance claims with Willis and The New Hampshire Insurance Company. For example, claims have been denied, because the storage unit had an intact lock. As a result the insurance company said there was insufficient evidence of forced entry, though burglars often replace the unit's lock.

An ongoing class action lawsuit alleges Public Storage misleads consumers into thinking that insurance fees are charged at cost, whereas a substantial amount of fees are kept as revenues for company.

I oppose this proposed draft language as far too weak. We now have three investigative reports by various TV stations with similar or comparable findings. They emphasize high pressure sales tactics of highly profitable but ineffective insurance policies, a high rate of burglaries, a pattern of denying valid insurance claims, legally dubious justifications for denying claims, refusal to deal with a commmon modus operandi of the burglars, and so on. Why would burglars lock a burglarized unit? Why, to conceal the burglary for weeks or months, of course. One of these reports says that employees often misrepresent burglary rates. It seems clear that the company has no internal policy to report burglary rates accurately to their customers.

So far, we have no reliable, independent sources saying that this company has an excellent reputation for waterproofing its facilities, for outstanding security to prevent burglaries, for marketing excellent insurance policies, and for disclosing local unit burglary rates accurately to consumers. Quite the contrary. On the other hand, we have reliable sources reporting that this is an unusually profitable company, and that its insurance sales unit is even more profitable. All of this information must be presented accurately in this article, so that our readers will have an accurate, well-balanced, well-referenced, NPOV overview of this company. They will know that it is a highly profitable REIT corporation, and they will also know how much (or how little) attention this company places on excellent customer service. Only then will this article be worthy of GA status. And it will therefore be a service to our readers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Unfortunately or not, we're limited to information contained in reliable sources. To move this matter forward, I really think we need at least one of the following two things from you or others: (1) additional, reliable sources that we can use for information [I looked quite a bit; the five sources used in the proposed draft paragraph are all that I found], and/or (2) specific wording, based solely on the reliable sources we have, that you'd like to see, rather than what has been proposed. For example, it looks like you believe that PS has poor customer service. And I certainly tend to agree. But unless we can find a reliable source that makes that general statement, we can't include such a generalization in the article. To do so would be a WP:NOR violation. We are absolutely not allowed to try to "connect the dots"; we're not allowed to infer that an organization does something because there is no evidence to the contrary; we're not allowed to act as a consumer advocate, offering advice to readers (see WP:NOT). All of this can be frustrating, but keeping out subjective information is what makes consensus possible. -- John Broughton (??) 18:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

John Broughton, if we summarize and cite these sources accurately, then readers can draw their own conclusions. I do not have time to draft alternate language right now but will work on it in several hours. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I have made copy edits to the proposed language below; feel free to revert any of it. I made the following changes: 1) fixes to punctuation, 2) simplified by removing mention of insurance company names, which are especially not notable as they were not defendants in the class-action suit, 3) more minor textual clarification, and 4) I added a new phrase stating a fact that offsets the insurance suit, putting it in context and making the paragraph more well-rounded. I must say, I am surprised and quite interested to see the article now has several sources citing this facet of the company. I agree with all of John Broughton's comment above. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 06:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I made some copyedits too. It looks pretty similar to the prior proposed version and I don't really see a problem with it. I see that the Squarefoot Storage source has about 7 pages of search results for "Public Storage" and while most of it is on trivial appointments, etc. it would be worthwhile to skim the rest of the source for other topics. I didn't use it before because I didn't think it would be reliable, but it looks ok. I might take a look at it at some point. I still have a hard time seeing 2 paragraphs about insurance, which is 3% of revenue, using local sources and sources like Law360/Squarefeet that cover every sneeze, but it's fine. CorporateM (Talk) 14:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Cullen328, please remind me how exactly will the Proposed language merge with the existing article? I assume we won't lose encyclopedic information. Prhartcom (talk) 03:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Prhartcom, I propose to substitute this language for the existing five sentences starting with "Many Public Storage customers have filed complaints with the Better Business Bureau . . ." I do not think encyclopedic content will be lost.

As for the concerns of CorporateM about the fact that insurance sales are 3% of company revenue, this section is about customer service, security, high undisclosed burglary rates and the quality of insurance services, not the dollar amount of insurance sales. A business is far more than its "financials" and a Wikipedia article is not a prospectus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I made an additional copy edit just to address the "two paragraph" objection, which is valid. Cullen328, can you please accept my edit? My only intention is to help the structure and pacing of the proposed language within the article (certainly if readers want to know more, they can read the referenced articles). Prhartcom (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

src: ayresselfstorage.com

Proposed language

Many Public Storage customers have filed complaints with the Better Business Bureau regarding insurance policies sold by Public Storage representatives, after experiencing burglaries of their storage units then having their insurance claims denied. Investigative journalists form local TV news stations in California, Kansas, and Washington have reported on difficulties consumers had when filing insurance claims for burglaries with Willis and The New Hampshire Insurance Company, which are affiliated with Public Storage. For example, claims have been denied because the storage unit had an intact lock; affiliated insurance companies cited insufficient evidence of forced entry, though burglars often replace the unit's lock in an attempt to conceal the burglary. An ongoing class action lawsuit alleges Public Storage misleads consumers into thinking that insurance premiums are charged at cost, whereas a substantial amount of those premiums are retained as profits by Public Storage. Sale of these insurance policies is a "high-margin source of revenue" for Public Storage, although revenue from tenant insurance is less than five percent of the company's total revenue.

I've gone ahead and (with one minor change in the text - in the final sentence, "even if" is now "although") and posted the above to the article. I suggest at this point we return to normal procedures - editing the article directly, or (CorporateM) suggesting specific edits on this page (ideally, in a new section).

As everyone knows, Wikipedia articles are never done, but we've improved this one, and I hope it continues to improve. -- John Broughton (??) 17:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

src: media.nbclosangeles.com

Request Edit April 26

Per the Good Article reviewer's feedback,[11] I'd like to request changing the following sentence: "Many locations have just one or two employees who are paid close to minimum wage and may live on-site." to the following "Public Storage has very few employees for a company of its size. Customer access to each storage location is automated. Some locations have a husband-wife couple that live on-site and are paid close to minimum wage to keep an eye on the facilities."

Since this edit reduces the critical tone of something that is well-sourced, I felt it would be best to request it in a Request Edit rather than make it myself, even though it was specifically asked for by the GA reviewer. CorporateM (Talk) 13:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

That's fine; I have made this change. Prhartcom (talk) 13:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

src: www.latimes.com

Out of date lede

The lede paragraphy is out of date. It doesn't matter what it's relative position was in 2008 or at some unspecified date--it matters what it is at 2017. DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

src: media.coindesk.com

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Public Storage. 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/20160304114647/http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/1347435/public-storage-inc-cashes-storing-your-stash to http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/1347435/public-storage-inc-cashes-storing-your-stash

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

• 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) 02:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Source of article : Wikipedia