Jump to content

Talk:American Automobile Association

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article name

[edit]

The organization changed its official name to simply the initials in 1997.

Curious: Is there a reason, then, that this article should not be renamed to simply "AAA"?

--guru 22:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AAA leads to a large disambiguation page, involving links from Economical, Arts, Sports, Science... It's probably best to keep the page named this away to avoid confusion. I realize this is an old Talk post, but it'd be good to get closure on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.63.103.141 (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism Paragraph is Soapbox Material

[edit]

Paragraph should be deleted or rewritten entirely. While AAA could certainly warrant criticism, it needs to be factual and NPOV.

"AAA still lobbies the American federal government and state governments for increased spending on roads and automobile safety, and against gas taxes and emissions regulations." Sweeping generalization & unsourced.

"For example, AAA lobbied against the 1990 Clean Air Act and various California emissions laws" Statement is not correct (AAA did and does support the Clean Air Act but not all facets of the proposed legislation), and citation does not contain verifiable source. Various emissions laws? Which ones?

"Their opponents argue that the AAA does not tell prospective members that it is a lobby group, and that the members join in order to have emergency towing privileges, not because they agree with the political positions of the organization, and that the AAA exploits their members' ignorance." Unsourced, inaccurate & inflammatory rhetoric

The pargraph is basically an unsourced soapbox rant with an advertisement to an alternate auto club.24.27.202.53 20:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The assertions about soap box material above is an attempt to keep balanced information that is relevant to AAA out of Wikipedia. It appears that this article is being systematically edited to omit environmental and political criticisms of AAA. Veesbees (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)veesbees[reply]


Amen. There are no sources whatsoever, and it's an ad for this "Better World" organization.Meersman 06:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources now. I added a 4th source in the place where a "citation needed" tag was placed and removed the "sources needed" tag. There are now more sources in that section than in the whole rest of the article. It's possible the article as a whole needs a "sources needed" tag but it seemes inappropriate to me to leave the sources needed tag on the one section with the MOST sources in the article. Plymouths 21:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also I'm totally confused at your criticism - I checked the history and as of Dec 19th (the day before your comment is dated) there were already THREE references in the criticism section. That's a far cry from "no sources whatsoever". If you're going to criticise the article could you maybe actually READ it before criticising? Plymouths 21:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current AAA clubs and territories

[edit]

Is this quote actually accurate? "Mississippi -- AAA Missouri, St. Louis, MO has jurisdiction over the state of Mississippi" Mississippi and Missouri don't even share a border, so I doubt very much that this is true. --Srwm4 14:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is correct, according to their website. Several AAA clubs are connected even though they do not share borders -- like AAA Southern California and AAA Texas.— WordsmithCommunications 13:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, the California State Automobile Association (northern California), which operates in Nevada, too, a few years ago bought AAA Utah. So CSAA operates as such in California, as the CSAA Nevada Division, and as AAA Utah, even though Utah shares no border with California. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.104.254.34 (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need this giant list? It's confusing, isn't useful or encyclopedic content and would have to updated often as clubs merger. It doesn't matter if you are a AAA member and travel to Maine or Florida or Utah you can get the same AAA services across the country. So why would it matter to the general public which clubs control which areas? I sure whoever put that exhaustive list together is AAA employee.

Why do you claim it is not encyclopedic content? It would not have to be updated very often as AAA clubs do not often merge. Wikipedia is updated often anyway.
75.33.71.242 06:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to know the list of Clubs and Territories. The services are not really available everywhere from every club. For instance different clubs sell dfferent auto insurance. One club may sell progressive and another club may be the actual underwriter. Some clubs have auto centers and some don't. While every club has roadside assistance, not every club has all of the other stuff:DMV, Insurance, Travel, Auto centers, etc. 216.163.247.1 (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give a sentence?

[edit]

Mantill Williams, Director of Washington Public Affairs, 202-942-2050, < http://aaanewsroom.net >, has been a major, the major, representative, for some ten years, possibly more. I am, personally, not exactly pleased with this agency. As a matter of fact, when I had been a member, I found their service to be less than advertized. However, Mr. Williams has presented a large amount of fascinating info., in a variety of interviews.

Thank You.

Hopiakuta 14:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an ad

[edit]

The Better World Club (yes, a competitor) notes in a recent newsletter that AAA has had a PR firm doing a lot of edits and adding material to this article. While the material is apparently factual, it still sounds like a great big AAA advertisement to me, what with listing all the offices and all the member services, etc. And it's getting pretty long, too. Anyone else get this impression? Z Wylld 14:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did a major re-word on the member benefits section to try to make it less advertising-speak. It could probably still use a little work. Plymouths 21:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd delete the list of benefits for 3 reasons:

1. It is basically an ad. 2. The "benefits" listed are more of a benefit to AAA than the member. Take the example of "info on auto loans" cited, or the AAA credit card programs. AAA refers members to a bank for these services and receives a kickback when their members borrow or use the credit card. Gullible members believe that these offers are somehow unique or better for members; in fact, they are chosen solely on the size of the kickback going to AAA, both at the national and club level. 3. These "benefits" vary from club to club. Some clubs have programs unique to them, while other clubs reject programs offered by national to cut deals locally.

AAA is basically a direct marketing organization that works for the enrichment of its national management ??? and the old-white-man ??? [NPOV] LETS LEAVE RACE RELATIONS IN THE APPROIATE ARTICIALS NOT DUMPED IN TO OFF TOPIC PLACES / ASKING FOR IMEDIATE REMOVAL OF THIS COMMENT AND HAVE IT PLACED SOME WHERE MORE APPROIATE / rubbish - trash bin ??? boards of the constituent clubs. The roadside assistance is the carrot that gets the rubes in to be sold credit cards, overpriced car warranties, and batteries they probably don't need whenever they receive a jump.

??? rubbish - trash bin / see above marked comment ??? JSo9-10 (talk) 03:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to edit this in the future, but will need to find 3rd party reliable sources to cite while describing the structure I've seen first-hand.Meersman 06:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there does need to be a benefits section to give a general overview but I agree that some of the listings can be removed. People should be able to go to the article and learn "oh, ok, they'll tow my car or do my travel arrangements" but they don't need a lot of detail beyond that. Plymouths 17:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok to remove tag?

[edit]

I've done a bunch of editing to the benefits section, including taking out a LOT of the listed benefits (leaving what I think are the basics), turning it into sentence form, and taking out all of the hyperbole. Do people think it is now sufficiently neutral to remove the "sounds like an ad" tag? Plymouths

Well if I don't get a response in a few days I'm going to go ahead and remove it. If someone disagrees they can put the tag back. Plymouths 22:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since I got no comments I went ahead and removed the tag. Plymouths 01:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

[edit]

"besides opposing environmental restrictions on automobiles, often supports widening highways as a way to reduce pollution when smart growth would be a more effective strategy" i deleted that because it gives off the idea that all road widening could be prevented by "smart growth" there are too many factors involved in widening a road to say they could all be avoided by "smart growth"

Added Criticism

[edit]

I came to this page for the sole purpose of reading the criticism section. (I had heard there was an environmentally friendly AAA alternative, and was looking for its name.) I was disappointed to find the section missing, and was only able to find the information I wanted in this discussion page.

I've added a short, well-referenced criticism section using neutral language. Jim 04:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone removed the criticism section, so I added a new one. My first substantial contribution to Wikipedia, so apologies if I made any mistakes. ThisIsMyWikipediaName (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, wikiscanner says that it's AAA's South Central Rhode Island (Providence) branch that has been removing the criticism section. They also added the line "We got the best hookers around ;-)" and, more on topic, This position should also be commended and much of the american population is ignorant to the actual facts of pollution. We should trust a company like AAA to make these major decisions. ThisIsMyWikipediaName (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The latest round of blanking the criticism section appears to be courtesy of the Portland, Oregon branch of AAA. ThisIsMyWikipediaName (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism section boils down to 'AAA supports automobiles.' Isn't that rather obvious? Seems like the criticisms are really just veiled criticisms for private automobile ownership. 96.251.20.210 (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the current criticism section could boil down to a sentence or two explaining that AAA supports automobile ownership and laxer emissions laws and therefore AAA runs afoul of environmentalist groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.230.41 (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historical criticism references

[edit]

"We" and "Our"?

[edit]

From American Automobile Association#Maintaining Safe & Efficient Mobility in the 21st century:


That is quite obviously copied directly from AAA material. I don't even know what to do with it. In fact, there are quite a few things in the article that look like they were copied from AAA promotional stuff. I'm going to tag the article. --Kedalfax 00:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors with no other contributions have been periodically adding AAA promotional material. I reverted this last time it happened, and put a warning on User_talk:Freeleeday. This seems to have been happening for quite a while (see the History). I tried to rewrite the first half of the article in August to remove the advertisement tone (there used to be a subsection entitled "The AAA Today, A Mouse Click Away"), but it's hard when all of the information was provided by the AAA itself. The second half of the article (especially the "Safety and Legislative Programs") is so one-sided that changing to a NPOV would probably require a considerable amount of research. Jim 05:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After doing some research into the Wikipedia guidelines, it appears to be against Wikipedia copyright policy for the material on this page to include any portion of AAA promotional material. (See Wikipedia:Copyright problems and also the last section of Wikipedia:Business' FAQ.) In its current form, the section on publications appears to have been copied directly from this copyrighted document, most of the material in the "Safety and Legislative Programs" section has been copied directly from this copyrighted document, and the material on the Ford competition has mostly been copied directly from this copyrighted document. Per the guidelines in Wikipedia:Copyright problems, I have reverted to the last clean version of the page, from June 25, 2006 (before the first edit by User:WordsmithCommunications).
Unfortunately, this leaves the page with much less information than before. I have re-inserted the material I originally added on the Car Talk dispute and the Better World Club, and added a request for expansion at the top of the page. Other editors could try to go through the page history and find other deleted non-copyrighted material to reinsert. Jim 06:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please be careful when removing POV material! It looks like you took out my photo of the Car Care Center by accident. I'm putting it back in. --Coolcaesar 22:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I work for AAA and found some inaccurate links in the article. Under External links

[1] -- this link goes to AAA Minneapolis site -- not sure why this club was chosen, but the previous link in the list (AAA.com/stop) will take users to a page from which they can find their local club site. This link [1] should be deleted.

AAA's Five Diamond Restaurants (Word File) -- this info is from 2005, but the list is updated annually. The current list is at [1]

AAA's Five Diamond Hotels (Word File)-- this info is from 2005 as well, and the current info is at [2]

Jgraziani (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for expansion

[edit]

This article was recently reverted to a version from June 2006 per the guidelines in Wikipedia:Copyright problems (see talk above). This has likely resulted in the deletion of some legitimate content. If you have previously contributed non-copyrighted content into this article, feel free to retrieve it from the page history and re-insert it. Jim 04:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who owns AAA state clubs? Is AAA a true nonprofit?

[edit]

The article says that the AAA is a nonprofit but that the state clubs own the master AAA organization.

That makes little sense. The Texas AAA club is organized as an LLC, which as far as I understand is a for-profit business type. Would it make sense for for-profit state organizations to own a nonprofit master organization? Or does the master organization own the state ones?

Nova SS (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I work for the AAA national office in Heathrow, FL, and I know you don't like employees to comment, but there is a factual error in the first paragraph under "History" -- AAA was established when nine individual small auto clubs banded together on March 4, 1902, in Chicago (not Cleveland); and the total membership at that time was approximately 1,500. For confirmation, see http://www.aaanewsroom.net/Main/Default.asp?CategoryID=5&SubCategoryID=13&ContentID=83&SubContentID=2.

Also, I'm working to get a more complete answer for Novasource regarding the structure and non-profit status of AAA. But the short answer is that AAA is a non-profit federation of auto clubs. The purpose of the national office is to serve the local clubs, and the local clubs in turn serve their members. Jgraziani (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK -- here's the scoop on the nonprofit status. The American Automobile Association, Inc. (AAA) is a Connecticut nonstock corporation. Like other nonprofits, the corporation does not issue shares of stock or pay any dividends. Therefore, any profits AAA generates remain in the corporation and are not distributed to any individual or company. So no one "owns" or has any financial interest in AAA. If AAA would ever be dissolved, its assets would be distributed to charity. AAA is not a charity and it is not tax-exempt. It pays taxes on its income just like any business corporation. Hope this info helps. 143.61.249.29 (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AAA and the FIA

[edit]

What is the relationship between the AAA and the FIA?129.173.208.252 (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Come on AAA needs some more love —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.101.80 (talk) 01:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AAA used to sanction races with IndyCars, Stock Cars, Midgets, motorcycles, etc before the United States Auto Club (USAC) took over sanction in the 1950s. AAA began sanctioning in the early 1900s. Royalbroil 03:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Total number of members?

[edit]

Would be interesting. German ADAC has about 16 million, or a fifth of Germany's population.-- Matthead  Discuß   22:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "AAA"?

[edit]

The organization's official name is "AAA." To conform with the association's name, I propose two solutions. 1) Move the article to "AAA" and move the AAA disambiguation page to "AAA (disambiguation." 2) Move the article to "AAA" with something in parentheses, such as "AAA (American Automobile Association)," or generally anything to set it apart. Then, of course, put notices at the top of pages as necessary to redirect readers to the appropriate article.

What do people think? Jesuschex (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, that would be correct, but I think this is a case in which we should WP:IAR and let the expanded acronym serve to disambiguate. Powers T 13:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Powers, and I have trouble believing that AAA was the official name. Except if you can provide a reliable source.... Royalbroil 03:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Business Name: THE AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, INC. [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.14.199 (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can't argue with the state of CT www.concord-sots.ct.gov/CONCORD/PublicInquiry?eid=9744&businessID=0068703 as your link shows that's their official name, but ... they seem to have been the first to widely and consistently use AAA. As we give the spelling ties to the "person(s)" British / or American person that wrote the article so it should go here... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AAA&oldid=436042 ... it seems it was originally a list of AAA and number 1 on the list is " AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION " so newbie here thinks, fir what little it matters, that it should stay as is, no moving to " AAA ". Sorry triple aaa, but i can't support the move. JSo9-10 (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest edits

[edit]

Unfortunately, we are back in a situation where most of the content of this article violates WP:NPOV. Specifically, over half of the content has been added by User:Freeleeday, who edits this article periodically, and has not made edits to any article besides this one.

This user had previously been adding content to this article directly out of AAA publications, but this was removed per Wikipedia:Copyright problems. The newer material added by User:Freeleeday does not appear to suffer from copyright issues, but it is still essentially promotional material, and as such it is not written from a neutral point of view.

Because this editor's actions suggest a conflict of interest, I have added a conflict of interest template message to the top of the article, and I have reported User:Freeleeday to the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. Jim (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you suspect a conflict of interest, I recommend aggressively undoing the edits, even if sourced. The Wikipedia model can be gamed by a person with know-how such that biased edits tend to stay simply because they are sourced. Worse, significant biased edits can make it such that it's difficult to know how to to proceed in developing an article. Working from a biased article will tend to produce a biased result even if that's not your intention. The only way forward to make sure bias-creep doesn't occur. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
???Conflict of interest??? Have you looked at this ??? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_World_Club#References Sloane, Julie. Mitch Rofsky And Todd Silberman, Founders, Better World Club, Portland, Ore. This auto club is almost a carbon copy of the AAA--§→→→without all the pro-pavement lobbying.←←←§ FORTUNE Small Business, June 1, 2003, retrieved January 31, 2007.
YOU ARE JOKING RIGHT, you are commenting on this articial and not that " Better_World_Club ". Let's all run out and buy a horse and buggy, never mind that the horse would be starving to death in a month, the crulty of the bit in it's mouth, ... the rest of this obvious ADVERTISEMENT IS SILLY. i'm not saying AAA did not influence this articial, but obviously most of those objecting to the content and POV have never been stuck in the middle of nowhere freezing, or over heated (108° in the shade?), i have and over the years AAA has bailed me out. OR could it be they are trying to drive traffic and membership to " Better_World_Club ". i have already mentioned it FOUR TIMES !!! IMHO JSo9-10 (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Content in AAA and the Environment has been lifted directly from the AAA Public Affairs website. See sentence starting "In addition to encouraging fuel efficiency..." [4] and "In 1992, AAA launched a popular ecotourism promotion". 66.167.171.249 (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of AAA Regional Clubs

[edit]

This list has changed (at least for Massachusetts) since October 2011. AAA Merrimack Valley merged with AAA Southern New England and the article needs to be edited accordingly.

Macious (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cite your source and change it. JSo9-10 (talk) 05:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. While no single title has won out, only two editors' comments indicate they might actually like the current title. No prejudice against a new RM with a new suggestion; this may be one of the cases where (proper) parenthetical disambiguation is called for. --BDD (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AAA (American Automobile Association) → American Automobile Association – I propose that we revert the page move that was performed on this article a few days ago. The original reason was that the company is commonly known as "AAA" and "no longer known as the 'American Automobile Association'".[5] While that may be true, the original title was more concise (per WP:CRITERIA) and presented a sufficient natural disambiguation when compared to the other articles listed on the AAA disambiguation page. Another alternative could be AAA (motor club), but there may be a primary topic conflict with the Australian Automobile Association. Thus AAA (U.S. motor club) may also be a more concise, precise option. Any other suggestions are welcome. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page has to be moved because you can't have two different names in the title. I do not think it should be moved to American Automobile Association as per WP:COMMONNAME because this does not seem to be commonly used to refer to the organization. In fact, I couldn't find "American Automobile Association" mentioned anywhere on AAA's website (except for one mention on the site's history page). I do not think that AAA (motor club) is appropriate either because AAA is not one motor club, but it is "a not-for-profit federation of 50 motor clubs"[6]. I think AAA (motor club federation) or something along those lines is most appropriate. –Dream out loud (talk) 05:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to American Automobile Association. When an acronym title is not unique, the best way out of the conundrum is to spell it out in full. And are you sure the title is no longer correct? I found several examples of it being spelled out on the AAA website, for example at [7]. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • AAA (organization) would work. It's probably as precise as we can get with a disambiguator. --BDD (talk) 23:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to AAA (federation of U.S. motor clubs) AAA (U.S. motor clubs). I liked BDD's suggestion, until I checked the AAA dab page - there are a number of uses of AAA that are organizations (e.g., Australian Automobile Association, American Ambulance Association, etc.)

    So then I thought this is a special case... the WP:COMMONNAME (AAA) is ambiguous, and the most concise reasonable disambiguator is itself a common (not most common) name for the topic. So it makes sense to use that disambiguator (American Automobile Association) as the title.

    WP:COMMONAME states: "Ambiguous ... names ... are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. ". Since we must avoid using AAA (at least without a disambiguator), the alternate long commonly used name is a reasonable choice. Great!

    Not great. The problem is that it appears that American Automobile Association is not used to refer to this topic hardly at all. So this is not the case of a using a common name, but just not the most common name - it's about using a name that is not commonly used to refer to this topic at all.

    So we're back to AAA plus a disambiguator. I read the article for insight into an appropriate description... and came up with U.S. federation of motor clubs. But that might suggest a government association of some kind... thus we have: federation of U.S. motor clubs. Not elegant, but it is described and explained in the lead... --B2C 00:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But is "federation of..." necessary? Maybe U.S. motor clubs is sufficient? Yes, I think so... striking/changing accordingly. --B2C 00:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, not at all. That is a complete violation of WP:COMMONNAME. We can't use the less common name just because its common name is also the same name as other articles. "American Automobile Assocation" is not even used once in the organizations "about us" page or fact sheet. It needs to be renamed to "AAA" as it is commonly called, along with a disambiguator. –Dream out loud (talk) 05:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguating an abbreviation by using its real name is pointless. And making a disambiguator up to avoid doing this is more pointless still. Sorry, but this one of the rare examples where commonsense trumps commonname! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one is suggesting "Disambiguating an abbreviation by using its real name"... that's what we're trying to fix. Besides, American Automobile Association is not its "real name". AAA is no longer an acronym (it never was an abbrev.), it is the name of this topic, period.

As far as "making up a disambiguator", that's what we're required to do by WP:D when the title is ambiguous, and there is no reasonable alternative, which is the case here.

What's wrong with AAA (U.S. motor clubs)? --B2C 23:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's pointless and needlessly verbose, that's what. "AAA is no longer an acronym (it never was an abbrev.)". Bizarre statement. It was always an abbreviation (which is the term in common speech, as opposed to pedantese, for an initialism; it was never an acronym (unless someone pronounced it "aaah", which I would somehow doubt). -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that the current title is verbose/redundant and the proposed title is misleading about the name of this topic. --B2C 20:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adamantly oppose - I'm actually a member of AAA and "American Automobile Association" is no longer the company's name. I didn't even know that was the title because all references made by the company to its name - including bills, literature, letterheads, phone calls - use only AAA. I think a title like AAA (insurance) is simple and effective. This is how Anthem (insurance) and The General (insurance) are disambiguated. American Eagle (talk) 06:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except it's at least as well know for the motor clubs as the insurance. --B2C 20:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • See this.[8] "AAA (the American Automobile Association, Inc.) is a federation of affiliated automobile clubs. Each AAA club is an independent, not-for-profit organization, chartered and incorporated in its own state and controlled by its own Board of Directors." Our opening sentence is false and should instead say "The American Automobile Association, abbreviated as AAA..." Apteva (talk) 23:41, 28 June 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Best known as American Automobile Association, even when abbreviated. Apteva (talk) 23:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: AAA is hopelessly ambiguous, and AAA (American Automobile Association) does nothing to serve our readers that American Automobile Association doesn't do more concisely. WP:PRECISE and WP:NATURAL support American Automobile Association, and WP:TITLETM says just because the corporate logo abbreviates it as AAA doesn't mean we have to. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 22:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It has nothing to do with the logo; there is strong evidence that they have actually renamed themselves "AAA". Just like FedEx no longer stands for Federal Express. Powers T 15:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; the proposed title is not even remotely a common name for the organization anymore. News articles almost never expand the abbreviation, nor does anyone in common discourse. Powers T 15:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose since the proposed title is not the common name or the evident official name. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; Whether people consider "American Automobile Association" to be a useful 'description' of the organization is rather irrelevant. It was a prior name, long ago, but no longer applies to the current company. Just because the current name of "AAA" is not very descriptive is not a reason to refuse to use it or to cling to a prior name. Said differently, people's feelings about how best to describe the organization are not pertinent to a discussion of its actual name. We should name companies by their actual, legal name. I think the idea of naming the page "AAA (U.S. motor club)" is likely the best solution, as it uses the actual name, but adds a parenthetical comment for the purposes of disambiguation. SeanAhern (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Requested move 04 September 2013

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to American Automobile Association, per consensus.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AAA (American Automobile Association) → AAA (U.S. automobile association) – The parenthetical disambiguation present in the current title is quite illogical. It disambiguates the organization's current name (AAA) by its former name (American Automobile Association) and is analogous to having NASDAQ (National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations) or USA (United States of America).

Disambiguation is most useful when it answers the question What is it? in a way that is unique from other topics with the same name. For this reason, both AAA (organization) and AAA (automobile association) will not work, since they do not uniquely identify the topic—the Australian Automobile Association is both an organization and, as the name declares, an automobile association. The parenthetical disambiguation in AAA (U.S. automobile association), however, clearly identifies AAA as an American automobile association. I do not insist that my proposed title is a very good one, but it does seem to be better than the alternatives proposed in the previous discussion (which were either opposed or gathered very little support) and definitely is better than the current title. Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Revenues? Budget? Funding?

[edit]

This 'article' tells me almost nothing about this organization that I would like to know. What are its annual revenues? Where does this money come from? How is it allocated? What is the organizational structure? Etc. Benefac (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Membership Stats

[edit]

One of the key things anyone will look for is how many members an association has and this page doesn't have that information. Maybe AAA doesn't want to reveal that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vineet thakur15 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

aaa.com links redirecting to state club home page

[edit]

The links to individual AAA clubs generally seem to redirect to the home page for my state's AAA club. That's annoying enough, but there's also a link to the Port Authority lawsuit (http://www.ny.aaa.com/Advocacy/Port-Authority-Lawsuit.aspx) which redirects the same way.

If I find the lawsuit page on google, the "cached page" link displays the actual page about the lawsuit, but that's a lot more effort than should be needed. I found another page with info on this lawsuit (http://www.nystateofpolitics.com/2011/09/aaa-sues-to-overturn-port-authority-toll-hikes/) which is a possible alternate link for the lawsiut.

Maybe this is specific to my browser settings, or maybe it's specific to the location I'm at (San Francisco area). Please speak up if you encounter this problem or not so we can understand when this link works and when it doesn't. Thanks! Fabrickator (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a function that many AAA clubs have set up, redirecting you to the website of the club that's the right one for the ZIP code your ISP is based in. (I ran into a lot when I worked in Virginia, but the Internet connection was routed through our NYC office, so AAA Mid Atlantic would always redirect to NY/NJ AAA. You can sometimes get around it by using Incognito mode, blocking cookies, and/or not letting your browser share your location. Carter (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am an employee of AAA, at the bottom of all the Clubs' website is a link to visit other AAA Club's by adding your zip code. You will then be routed to the Club who services that zip code. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecomedychick (talk • contribs) 19:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This misses the point. The idea is that when a page contains a link, the intent is that it goes to a page with some particular content (not necessarily static content, but this goes back to the notion that a uri represents an abstraction of some sort). The abstraction that we expect is that a page for "New York branch of the AAA" goes to the page for the New York branch of the AAA. However, the AAA actually controls the uri and determines what the abstraction is, which is that this uri goes to the page for whatever branch covers the area where you're accessing the web from. Whether or not there's a link to visit a specified zip code (I don't see what you're talking about, try http://www.ny.aaa.com/Magazine.aspx) misses the point. We need links that work in sensible ways to meet the needs of the reader, not links to meet what AAA believes meet their own commercial needs (but I do feel people should consider whether they want to patronize a business that has its web site fail to abide by the normal rules of civil behavior). Fabrickator (talk) 09:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've always found that aspect of the AAA site to be very annoying as well. Keep in mind, though, that AAA's complex legal structure is difficult for most laypersons to understand. My guess is that the automatic redirects to local sites are there to ensure that members don't tie up customer support resources at the wrong AAA club. --Coolcaesar (talk) 12:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is the AAA's legal structure or the desire of AAA's management to redirect viewers to local sites relevant to the fact that their links just don't work? The fact that this is an intentional act, an act which generally violates the way things works on the internet, just makes it more despicable and unacceptable.
Is it not reasonable to take a hostile stance towards this this anti-social behavior? Is there any reason that non-functioning links (i.e. links that don't take one to the intended content) should not be removed? Alternatively, we could post a notice on the page giving AAA a time limit within which to fix their links under threat of removal of the links. (One thing I don't want to consider is trying to create archived pages; with some difficulty, this could be done, but few of these pages are so precious as to justify the extra effort for something that SHOULD JUST WORK.) Fabrickator (talk) 05:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

membership numbers and AAA fact sheet

[edit]

So there are various minor things which I have questions which it's not clear what is the appropriate way to handle them.

The very beginning of this article lists AAA membership count as of 2010, with a footnote to the 2010 version of the AAA Fact Sheet. The link itself doesn't work (it displays a "404" page, at least for me), and the saved copies from archive.org also display a 404 page. However, the footnote itself includes a working link to an archived copy of the 2010 Fact sheet.

Rather than have a link (working or not) to an old stale AAA Fact Sheet, wouldn't it be better for this to link to the current AAA Fact Sheet? The archived link can still be there to support the 2010 membership claim.

But that raises another niggling point, which is what's the right thing to do about the membership count? It's of interest to have an idea of how prevalent membership is, but there's nothing special about the count as of 2010, that's just an arbitrary point in the relatively recent past. Perhaps rather than try to give a "precise" membership count, giving a general idea of the number would serve just as well, e.g. "There are currently around 50 million AAA members" (along with the footnote to the Fact Sheet).

OK, well just some rambling thoughts. Your comments are of course welcome. Fabrickator (talk) 04:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The AAA clubs charge different fees

[edit]

Why are various AAA clubs charging differen fees such as $20 more for add on when the clubs are only about 15 to 20 miles apart and are supposed to be a non-profit? Also why can't one sign up at any club if the benefits cross?199.96.255.30 (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

dropping "formerly known as" from in front of "American Automobile Association"

[edit]

The January 17, 2004 revision inserted "formerly known as" in front of "American Automobile Association", indicating that the legal name had been changed to "AAA" some years earlier.

The precise wording of this has changed, at one point it was "historically known as", but the indication that this is not its current official name has been present (evidently continuously) up until the changes of July 24, 2015, with the article lead now changed to: 

AAA (pronounced "triple A"), American Automobile Association, is a federation of motor clubs  ...

and there being no mention of the fact that this is not the current official name.

There's no annotation about the change, for all I know, AAA has re-embraced its old name. Or perhaps the notion is that the use of the long form is so ubiquitous that it's silly to suggest that it's not still the "American Automobile Association". Anybody care to express their feelings one way or the other?

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on American Automobile Association. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 01:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Here are two links regarding "Catalytic Con Job":

In the first case, I'm not sure if it's okay to reference such an article from a third-party site; the second case is different from the original article. So in each of these cases, I'm unsure whether a citation to the link would be consistent with Wikipedia policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabrickator (talk • contribs) 23:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reslved: Six years later, I have updated to use the link on the junksciencearchive.com site. Fabrickator (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

references for discrimination

[edit]

The question is raised (by virtue of a recent edit) as to whether the AAA ever restricted membership based on race.

Owing to the fact that AAA was formed as a federation of motor clubs, membership policy (at least in its early days) would generally have been established by the individual motor clubs rather than by a national policy. If any one of the affiliated organizations had such membership restrictions, then it can at least be said that there's "something" to such a claim.

Though there's the occasional reference making a statement to this effect, finding a "good" citation for this can be challenging. For instance, a collection titled Papers of the NAACP exists, but the online content (if you can figure out how to view the text within the PDF, which turns out to be a technical challenge) is limited to a listing of the items in the collection, one of which is identified as American Automobile Association membership policy.

There's also at least one reference available online about one of the member clubs having a membership restriction based on religion.

In any case, I have identified the following article from the Baltimore Afro-American newspaper dated April 26, 1955[1]:

The board of governors of the Automobile Club of Maryland, an affiliate of the [AAA], voted Monday to open membership to all. ... A year ago, the board scrapped a bylaw provision which restricted membership to white only. Monday's action ... was a followup of this by-law change.
Applications from colored automobile owners ... will be accepted if offered in person at the AAA office, Cathedral St., and Mt. Royal Ave.

It seems that we are left to guess about what restrictions were being removed by the current action. Fabrickator (talk) 04:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "AAA Ends 54-Year Ban".
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on American Automobile Association. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 07:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on American Automobile Association. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 05:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mutual Automobile Association (1920)

[edit]

Mutual Automobile Association should be part of the Article, see advert

Advertising for Mutual Automobile Association dated 1920 published in Western Magazine

--Velocipedus (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Velocipedus: I see that "Western Magazine" was the official publication of Mutual Automobile Association, and that it indicates they received news releases from American Automobile Association among other sources. Publication of "Western Magazine" continued under that name until 1928. I don't see anything about being merged into an AAA club. Do you have any info about a specific connection with AAA? Fabrickator (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fabrickator: I suspect there is a connection, but I uploaded the image as a question and a resource rather than as a theory. I hope someone will be able to work this out. Velocipedus (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of regional clubs

[edit]

I removed the list of regional clubs from the article. The section was almost entirely unsourced, and contains a list of trivial and excessively detailed information that's best left to AAA's own website. FuriouslySerene (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to see this information restored. The problem is that there isn't a "AAA's own website." It's an association of associations and the list of regional clubs is one of the few easily accessible resources that outlines the interwoven groups that make up AAA. I'd also disagree that it lacked sourcing; the URL for each club is present in the table, which is a primary source for the information included. Due to the way AAA clubs redirect web visits based upon the visitors location, it's a less than perfect source, but it was better than most other sources. It doesn't seem to me to run afoul of WP:DIRECTORY or WP:PLOT, especially when placed within the context of the AAA article. Carter (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't said anything about the deletion of the club list because, to me, it was another example of Wikipedia dysfunctionality. Random people, presumably abiding by Wikipedia policy, harm Wikipedia. But I don't advocate one way or the other, I just watch, looking for the evidence that Wikipedia is crumbling. Do as you will. Fabrickator (talk) 06:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@FuriouslySerene: Based on WP:Content_removal#Unsourced_information, it appears that removal for content being unsourced should only occur if there is a belief that no source exists. Nor does there seem to be an exception in the case that a section is "almost entirely unsourced." Do you feel that I'm misinterpreting this policy? Fabrickator (talk) 05:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The AAA list of local media contacts gives a rough breakdown of which clubs are associated with which states/regions -- http://newsroom.aaa.com/for-media/local-media-contacts/ . I think between that and the link to each club's website, it cannot be said that the list is unsourced and it should be restored. Carter (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with FuriouslySerene's removal of the table as containing too much trivia and excessive detail, but I also believe that some of that information should stay in the article. Perhaps one compromise would be to have a lead paragraph saying that AAA has X number of clubs, of which the following are notable ones, and then a bulleted list with links only to those clubs that are notable enough to warrant full-length Wikipedia articles like the Auto Club and CSAA. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't agree with you Tcr25. The table I removed had 6 columns of information, which for only some clubs had a link directly to the club in question. For many, the only link was simply aaa.com. The link did not support the information in the the other columns in the table. Per WP:VERIFIABILITY: "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." There was no inline citation for any of the material that I removed. I supposed you could find citations for each clubs, its headquarters, the date it was founded, its territory, and its insurance (assuming the info provided was accurate, which has not been established), and then add that to the page. However, that sourcing was not included on the table. Even if such sourcing can be found, my position is that this is excessive and intricate detail that does not belong on the page. I'd be open to an RfC, but the info definitely should not be restored unless it's properly sourced. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First, A correction to your statement that "for many, the only link was simply aaa.com". While many links were displayed as "aaa.com", the actual link in each case (or at least, in virtually every case) was something more specific than "aaa.com". I've added back the list of regional clubs, and added an inline reference to the media contacts list, which substantially supports the content in the table. Notwithstanding WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:Content_removal#Unsourced_information supports such removal only when there's a belief that a source is not available. If you think that sourcing needs improvement, the solution should be to improve the sourcing, not to remove valid, verifiable content. Fabrickator (talk) 05:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Content_removal is an essay, while WP:VERIFIABILITY is policy. Essays are the opinion of an editor, have no official status, and don't speak for the Wikipedia community as a whole. Per WP:UNSOURCED, which is WP policy (and is not an essay), "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." That means the burden is on you, which you haven't done by restoring unsourced content. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:VERIFIABILITY, "When ... removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content... If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself..." So it seems to me that the statement in WP:UNSOURCED is actually in the spirit of the policy, while your removal, even when there is no inline citation, is contrary to that spirit. However, you have actually gone ahead and removed content for which a valid citation was present. Hopefully you will not repeat this behavior. Fabrickator (talk) 04:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, you've got it the wrong way around. The burden under WP core policies is always on the editor justifying inclusion to get a reliable source. The much bigger problem, though, is that the entire table is a giant violation of WP:NOT and WP:NOR. For whatever reason, AAA has chosen to obscure the federation's complex structure---probably because it's an illogical train wreck that makes no sense now that the Rust Belt has been so badly depopulated and doesn't need so many itty-bitty local motor clubs. Trying to put Humpty Dumpty together again in a table in this article is first publication of original research in violation of WP:NOR. This is particularly obvious with the citations to the CSAA Insurance Group's Web site, since CSAA itself on that Web page does not assert that it is the official AAA-affiliated insurer corresponding to particular AAA clubs, only particular counties. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your "rust belt" comment is kind of off the wall; I would suggest you look at the original formation of the AAA to understand the structure, which has been transforming, in steps, to reflect more modern business practices. That aside, I didn't write WP:VERIFIABILITY, I just read it: "If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." But the issue here isn't about unsourced stuff being removed, it's that "sourced" content was removed. Did I miss the rule that allows for removal of content because "other" content is unsourced? I note that at the top of the regional clubs list is a suggestion for people to add any missing entries. How ironic it would if someone adds an entry which happens to include some unsourced content, and that is then used to justify deleting the whole table. As for the "insurance" column (which had been added relatively recently, in January 2016), if there is consensus on removing this, I would be happy to see it go. That addresses your WP:NOR objection, I think your WP:NOT is without justification. Fabrickator (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Fabrickator, and would say that the WP:NOR is a total red herring. It's research in that the information was tracked down for each club; this is directly related to the article and draws no implications that are out of line with the article or the sources. And your WP:NOT statement is meaningless unless you'd like to narrow down your objection. The list is relevant, although I agree if could probably be less detailed, and verifiable. Carter (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Go back and read WP:NOR again, especially "Synthesis of published material". First, the table is poorly sourced (at a bare minimum, there needs to be a footnote on every row establishing that so-and-so entity is part of AAA and is responsible for those particular states or counties), and second, it's indefensible synthesis. For whatever reason, AAA has never published on its main Web site a simple table of all their member clubs and respective geographical responsibility (which they presumably have on file somewhere) with links to their respective Web sites. Instead, AAA has always insisted on their annoying geolocation redirects and ZIP code lookup scheme that enables them to obfuscate their unnecessarily complex corporate structure. Unless you can cite to a third-party published reliable source that has already published a coherent and comprehensive description of AAA's member clubs, the table is a first publication of the statement that all those separate entities are part of AAA. That is original research and unacceptable under WP:NOR. It's also a violation of WP:NOT as I previously mentioned, specifically section 2.6, "Wikipedia is not a directory." --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're misreading WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH, which says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." It is not making conclusions that are not in the source. The list of media contacts on AAA's site provides confirmation of the different clubs, their affiliation with AAA, and their regions. I can see why you'd make a WP:NOTDIR objection if the article was List of AAA Regional Clubs. Within the context of the American Automobile Association article, however, the list expands the depth and value of the article. Could it be improved and edited? Yes. Should it be blanked? No. Carter (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on list of AAA regional clubs

[edit]
No consensus. Status quo (in favor of keeping the list) shall be maintained for the time-being unless another discussion with a dis-similar consensus takes precedence over this.Winged Blades Godric 07:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the "List of AAA regional clubs" section (link here) be included in the article? FuriouslySerene (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
  • No. Besides the fact that most of the content is unsourced and contains WP:OR, the information is a WP:DIRECTORY of information that is excessively detailed and not helpful to readers of the article. FuriouslySerene (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No: per FuriouslySerene. Clearly WP:OR, with only primary sources, excessively detailed, and WP:DIRECTORY. Perhaps just a single external link to AAA's main "locator"? Waggie (talk) 07:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Claims of WP:OR are unfounded and the information is very helpful in outlining the structure of the regional clubs that make up AAA. To Waggie's comment about an external link, the problem is that, despite it's branding, AAA is not a single entity and there is not a "main locator." Carter (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw RfC: The claims made and other justifications presented for removing this section have been shown to be inapplicable or otherwise invalid. Based on that, I suggest that the proponents of the RfC should withdraw it and focus their efforts on constructive activities. Fabrickator (talk) 06:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, the RfC is worded as a proposal to "include" the list of regional clubs. This seems to me as a backwards way of stating things, since the list of clubs is currently present in the article. By advocating for withdrawal of the RfC, I am advocating that the article continue to include the list of clubs. Fabrickator (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The directory objection does not really apply. The entries in WP:DIRECTORY that most closely resemble this are items 3 ("White or Yellow Pages") and 7 ("Simple listings"), but their correspondence to the AAA list is about the same as to a list of teams in the NFL or countries in NATO. Only people who don't appreciate the structure of AAA would say otherwise. Fabrickator (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Fabrickator's comment about WP:DIRECTORY and the list of clubs. Carter (talk) 02:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between a list of regional AAA clubs and NFL teams or countries in NATO is that the latter have considerable reliable coverage, while this has no identified independent reliable source coverage. FuriouslySerene (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

[edit]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

founding and early history

[edit]

Some points about the "early history" are omitted from the article.

As per American Motor League, when American Motor League merged with the AAA, it became the American Motor Association. So far, I haven't found a source indicating when the name reverted to American Automobile Association.

Some other details about the formation of the AAA are on the AAA website at http://exchange.aaa.com/about-aaa/aaa-timeline or http://newsroom.aaa.com/about-aaa/aaa-timeline/ . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabrickator (talk • contribs) 01:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about some recent changes that have been made to the article, particularly with regard to "history", though I haven't tracked down exactly when each occurred:

  • the nine motor clubs that met in 1902 to form the AAA are no longer listed in full
  • The role of Augustus Post in the founding of AAA is not particularly clear, references are often not contemporary
    • my suspicions include the statement on Augustus Post that "He was an original founder of what is now the American Automobile Association (AAA) first known as the Auto Club of America"
      • this seems to conflict with the AAA statement that it was formed of nine motor clubs
    • Augustus Post papers "finding aid" (http://www.dalnet.lib.mi.us/henryford/docs/AugustusPostPapers_Accession1765.pdf) states "Major Post was a founder of the Automobile Club of America and Chairman of its Touring and Highway Commission."
      • this fails to support the statement that AAA was "first known as the Auto Club of America"
    • Los Angeles Herald article on 10th anniversary (https://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=LAH19120309.2.84) mentions a number of people seemingly involved with the forming of the AAA, but I see no mention of Colonel Post
      • Is Augustus Post purported to be the first chairman of AAA or American Motor League (or neither or both)?

Fabrickator (talk) 05:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance templates

[edit]

Is the content in the article unbiased and referenced enough to warrant the removal of one or more of the maintenance templates at the top of the page? HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 03:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Automobile Association. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 15:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on American Automobile Association. 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:

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

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trip Tik

[edit]

Currently, Trip Tik and Triptik redirect to American Automobile Association#Rating System.

Setting aside the fact that while "triptik" is present on the page but "trip tik" is not, it's going to be a surprise for many people that this redirects to the section titled "Rating System".

To my mind (admittedly based on the "flip-book" TripTiks of bygone times), a TripTik is a set of driving directions, which really is unrelated to a "rating system".

FWIW, AAA still claims to offer paper TripTiks (see https://magazine.northeast.aaa.com/daily/travel/road-trips/paper-maps-triptiks-still/), though it's not clear how closely this resembles the TripTik classic format.

But bottom line, there's a problem with these redirects going to a section titled "Rating System". Fabrickator (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganizing list of AAA regional clubs

[edit]

(I note that there was a spirited discussion on this page a couple years back about whether this list should even be on this page. The following comment is about the structure/organization of the list, not its existence. So:)

For the table listing the regional clubs, do others have a view about changing the way it is organized? I note two primary issues:

  • The default sort does not seem to make a lot of sense. It seems to be roughly geographic, but that's not readily understood because US states do not fall in a straight line, and neither do the various club territories that may take up more or less than an entire state.
  • There are six explanatory footnotes that seem to indicate that several different "clubs" may fall under a single entity. But the footnotes are hard to parse, especially when reading them as part of a table. For example, in the very first (top-left) cell under default sort, there is an entry for "AAA Northern New England" with a footnote that says "AAA Texas, AAA New Mexico, AAA Hawaii, and AAA Alabama are part of the Auto Club of Southern California Enterprise (ACE). ACE has affiliation agreements with AAA Northern New England, AAA Missouri, AAA East Central, and AAA Tidewater." It took me a few times through that list to figure out that this footnote was not an error, because it's a lot of text and seems at a quick glance to be about the Southern California club, or Texas, or some place other than Northern New England.

I would suggest re-doing this table in one of the following ways. None are perfect, though I submit all are better than status quo. I welcome other suggestions, though!

  • Instead of explanatory footnotes, add another column for "Affiliation" or "Parent Club" or something like that. It seems like (just eyeballing) maybe half the clubs have notes to indicate they are actually part of or merged with some other club. I think a column with "ACE" or "Auto Club Group" or whatever would be a lot easier to use than the footnotes.
    • Alternatively, could split into different tables for each "super group" (e.g., "ACE Members and Affiliates"; "Auto Club Group Clubs"; "Independent Clubs"), though this might be harder to follow if you don't know the story of these larger groups (and I don't, nor does this page really explain it).
    • As it stands, there's a pretty significant inconsistency (I think), in that the ACE clubs are identified by a geographic club name ("AAA Texas") with a footnote, AAA Allied Group clubs are identified by that name with a region in parentheses and a footnote to a broader "Alliance," and Auto Club Group clubs have "Auto Club Group" listed under the club name column with only a footnote to the geographic name ("AAA Michigan," "Auto Club South"). I am fairly sure that at least Auto Club South goes by that name, not "Auto Club Group," so that seems like it should be what is listed in that column. The "affiliation" column I propose above would make this resolution fairly simple.
  • Consider: Default sort by the name of the club (with or without "AAA" included as part of the name). This doesn't quite alphabetize by state because only some clubs are state-named, but it at least has some logic to it.
  • Consider: Default sort, or make sortable, by the state of the headquarters rather than city. I confess I don't know if this would be a lot more work to make the state the sort-key for that column, but it seems far more useful than sorting by city name, which is essentially random and not always even a major city. Again, there isn't a 1-to-1 mapping of states to clubs, so this isn't perfect, but we work with what we've got.
  • Consider: Deleting the "Founded" year column since so few clubs have a date there. Obviously, if more can be added, great, but I'm not sure that's likely. It's also kind of trivial; a list of the original nine founding clubs, or other significant club/date pairs, might be relevant, but I'm not sure that anyone cares that AAA South Dakota got started in 1925. (Counterpoint, I guess, is that very few clubs are notable enough for their own separate articles, so basic information like this can only be found here.)

I welcome any thoughts. --EightYearBreak (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would throw some water onto this idea. The "corporatization" (i.e. loss of local club identity) has made the list of clubs much less interesting. The point I would make is that the AAA as it exists today is mostly just an insurance/tourist agency organization that takes advantage of its historical reputation as a roadside assistance service for much of its customer base. It seems to me that a current club list is not of much use or interest, because we're all seeing the same AAA infomercial on cable wherever we live, if you catch my drift.
A log showing all historical changes to club jurisdiction would be ideal, but that information isn't really available. A "snapshot" would give a better idea of the historical AAA. Improving organization or adding sorting features is not of much more interest than a tool to find Allstate agents in your area. Fabrickator (talk) 05:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ordinarily, I'd wait a bit before replying under my own post, but this is a very good point, and well stated. Perhaps a better use of time and resources would be to see if there is any sort of reliable source article discussing the consolidations (or "corporatization"). For example, the article currently says: "The number of local clubs has decreased over time through consolidation; as late as the 1970s the membership roster included dozens of clubs that each served a single county, particularly in New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania." It also says -- in an unrelated note -- "the two largest AAA clubs by membership [are] the Automobile Club of Southern California and Auto Club Group." Seems like one thing that potentially could be added after that first quoted sentence is something like, "Because of club consolidation, by 2019, X out of Y clubs were affiliated with one of 3 (or whatever) major clubs or groups of clubs; those 3(?) entities account for roughly Z% of AAA members (or territory covering Z% of the US population, or whatever we can find)." It certainly seems to be the case that these numbers might be significantly large, and on further reflection, I think that's really the kind of fact I was most interested in conveying through (and learning from) my proposed table revisions. After all, the issue that first caught my eye was that so many of the cells had footnotes pointing to a handful of "real" entities behind the various "club" names, but the organization uses the club names publicly and sort of implies they are meaningfully distinct groups. (I gather that at least some of these "auto clubs" used to be actual organizations with a distinct history, not just AAA franchises, even if that's not really the case today.) Thanks for helping clarify the issue for me! --EightYearBreak (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I just wanted to point out that there are some WP articles on specific clubs. Specifically, Automobile Club of Southern California includes a description of that club's expansion program. Fabrickator (talk) 02:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Adirlanz:

The following edit Revision as of 00:00, 19 September 2019 created a lot of archive links that just don't work. I realize that this wasn't your fault (aside from relying on a tool that's evidently not so reliable), but the bottom line is that this created a mess that's in need of a lot of cleanup.

<rant alert> The AAA web sites have always been a huge pain ... or at least, since the AAA folks learned to insert javascript to force the user to enter a zip code, resulting in a redirect to a page that's completely unrelated to the original page. But my preference for the AAA wikipedia article would be to replace it with a notice explaining that the AAA web sites are wikipedia-hostile, and stating that due to this, the Wikipedia AAA article is not available.</rant alert>

That's probably not going to happen, after all, why punish the public for the bad acts of AAA? But in any case, this is certainly most annoying. As long as we have the AAA page, though, these archive links need to be reviewed and either removed or repaired. BTW, I have noticed that (at least in some cases), the archives created by archive.today work well (i.e. it seems like javascript is disabled for the archive.today captures). In that case, setting "url-status" to "unfit" would be appropriate, converting the citation to use {{cite web}}, if necessary. Fabrickator (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the past 18 months or so, nothing has happened to revert those bad IAbot changes. Notwithstanding that issue, the "disable javascript" no longer seems to be an option (at least not for me when I'm using Chrome). Given that, I think it's time to just clearly point the finger, so in addition to reverting the IAbot changes and adding "{{cbignore}}", I suggest replacing the "disable javascript" comment and adding something like "quote=Access may be blocked by AAA redirect policy". That at least points the finger at the responsible party. Fabrickator (talk) 02:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

".aaa" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect .aaa. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

question about change to type

[edit]

The following edit Revision as of 05:26, 15 June 2020 changes the value of "type" to reciprocal inter-insurance exchange.

To be sure, it's not unreasonable to suggest that AAA is essentially a business association that provides the member insurance companies/brokerages with the opportunity to obtain prospects, under the guise of a consumer cooperative organization, which in the process, actually generates revenues to support the primary purpose of acquiring further consumer member/prospects.

But what does that have to do with a reciprocal inter-insurance exchange (which sounds like a mutual insurance company, but the definition differentiates by it not being a corporation)?

According to the definition, in this type of organization, there would be members who are exchanging contracts of indemnity with each other. Please indicate which members are exchanging these contracts of indemnity. I don't get it. Fabrickator (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does AAA sell insurance?

[edit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CqMli-0GzM

Just wondering, since this commercial parodies Mayhem from Allstate. 2600:8801:E00:760:5104:6036:3F10:DC0E (talk) 06:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This whole thing still sounds like an ad

[edit]

The whole article reads like a glowing review of all the great things AAA has done. Charlesmartin82 (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At least within the not too distant past, the article included modest criticism of AAA. But people who are motivated to change the POV of an article may succeed, whether by removing criticism or otherwise.
FWIW/IMO, the listing of the clubs is appropriate, though the consolidation of clubs has made it much less interesting. (At one point, I had suggested that updating the table of clubs was causing a loss of historical perspective, and that a historical list was of much greater interest than the current listing).
I would encourage you to look back through the history of the article to see if there is content that was deleted which you feel should be retained, possibly on the basis that there was no citation. If you are having difficulty finding good sources, I invite you to leave a note on my talk page to ask for another hand to aid in the effort. Thanks. Fabrickator (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drafting of safety acts

[edit]

This is for the discussion of the {{failed verification}} tag in the "History" section, regarding AAA's participation in drafting the "Motor Vehicle Safety Act" and the "Highway Safety Act". Speaking generally, I think this claim is overstated. Here are the specific isssues:

  • There were in fact two distinct acts, both designed to improve safety for motorists and the general public, but it strikes me as pointless wordiness to have a separate sentence for each act.
  • It appears that AAA's role was to comment on these proposed laws. Naturally, this would include expressions of various concerns. Claiming that they thereby "helped to draft" seems like it may be overstating AAA's actual role.
  • Enumerating each of eight or so different areas in which they responded seems rather excessive.

At least one person has expressed concern that the article "sounds like an ad". The narrative that comprises the "History" section seems like a major contributor to that concern. Cutting this particular item back would address that concern, even if only in a small way. Fabrickator (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Useful references

[edit]

References for initial AAA member clubs and extant auto clubs

[edit]

Some of the AAA-published lists of the clubs that joined AAA at the initial meeting have become inaccessible (e.g. due to the requirement to disable javascript). Here are working links from AAA sources as well as contemporaneous newspaper stories:

American Motor League

[edit]

Automobile Club of America

[edit]

Compendia

[edit]

The following nine clubs(with year of formation) participated in the March 4, 1902 meeting forming the AAA:

  • Automobile Club of America (1899)
  • Chicago Automobile Club (1900)
  • Automobile Club of New Jersey (1900)
  • Long Island Automobile Club (1900)
  • Rhode Island Automobile Club (1900)
  • Philadelphia Automobile Club (1900)
  • Princeton University Automobile Club (1901)
  • Automobile Club of Utica (1901)
  • Grand Rapids Automobile Club (1902)

At the time, the U.S. had around 50 localized motor clubs, according to the AAA Newsroom History page. Fabrickator (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reference for Triple-A nickname

[edit]

Quoting from the 25 August 2015 issue of Ashland Times-Gazette:

The association was founded March 4, 1902, in Chicago. The first members were Chicago Automobile Club, Automobile Club of America and Automobile Club of New Jersey -- hence the name, Triple-A.[1]

References

  1. ^ "A look at Bill Patznick's 1970 Nova and AAA". Ashland Times-Gazette. August 25, 2015. Archived from the original on May 10, 2022. Retrieved May 10, 2022.

Reference for charter members

[edit]

Per AAA celebrates 80 years of traffic safety initiatives:

On March 4, 1902, a group of over 1,000 charter members established the American Automobile Association in Cleveland, Ohio...

No mention of 1922 splinter group

[edit]

In 1922, a splinter group of AAA-affiliated auto clubs switched their affiliation to form the National Motorists Association (not to be confused with the U.K. organization of that name nor the U.S. organization that began life as Citizens’ Coalition for Rational Traffic Law).

During the period of their co-existence, lots of stories were published (check Chronicling America as well as Internet Archive Digital Library), each organization just trying to keep its name in the public eye. As just one example, see Motorist Bureau Started in Buffalo.

Although they eventually managed to resolve their differences (re-uniting in 1924), this period of competition between the two organizations probably benefited all participants by spurring some degree of innovation. In any case, this is really an untold story (insofar as either the AAA website or WP article goes) which likely contains a fair amount of Wikipedia-worthy material. Fabrickator (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

updating citations 2024

[edit]

founding of the AAA

[edit]

There is a citation for the founding of the AAA ("Automobile Men Organize". Minneapolis Daily Times. March 5, 1902. p. 6.). This had linked to a clipping on newspapers.com, but that link no longer provides a legible clipping. There is probably some way to get it refreshed, but we should try to avoid links that "expire" in this manner. I found some other good newspaper stories on the NYS Historic Newspapers] site, but I couldn't figure out how to get a url which would be convenient to use. As an alternative, I suggest this link from the Providence News. Story is in the second column, titled "Rhode Island In It". I'll note that this story makes the claim that the AAA "will assume national jurisdiction over road and track racing ...", which (if I recall correctly) contradicts some other sources stating that AAA did not aspire to this role until some time later. Fabrickator (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Automobile_Association&oldid=1213585828"