Talk:Corporate-owned life insurance

message: Can a job position (such as CEO) be insured for full-time, knowledgable and competent status, instead of an individual persons life being insured?  The benefits of such is that Corps always have a relevant interest in a job position being competently filled, but never should have an interest on specific employees (unless said employee is truly irreplaceable).  The money gained from such a policy might be limited at specific times to that which is needed to get the job competently filled, and maybe to replace lost income to an extent (barring manipulative practices such as firing people for little or no cause during a recession to collect on the pre-recession expected income). --Formerly the IP-Address 24.22.227.53 (talk) 13:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question on COLI 

message: This article should have more coverage on the moral and political debates around COLI. For example, some discussion of Capitalism: A Love Story would be worthwhile. --63.119.93.194 (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In today's episode of Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Keith's hour-long "Special Comment" features a segment on these policies. Should be a day or two until the transcript of the show should be available for sourcing. -- RoninBK  T C   02:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction, it's up already at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33213245/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann -- RoninBK  T C   02:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moral or political fallout 

message: Exactly where is the legislative history on this practice?  I would like to pull up some archives if anybody wants to give me a starting point.
I need to know what year companies started doing this?  shari74@gmail.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.126.107 (talk) 01:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the Legislative History? 

message: A perennial issue in article naming is what to do when we have a topic that isn't inherently US-specific, but our treatment of it is (I suppose it could happen with any country, but it's usually the US). They're often tagged with , and that often doesn't do much good. Naturally, some editors get impatient and want to move the article, Foo, to Foo in the United States. That can fit the article's scope better, but what do you do with the base title? Having "Foo" redirect to "Foo in the United States" just reflects the same bias. IMO, it's worse, because an incomplete article is one thing; redirecting like that implies US treatment is what really matters. And of course, making such a move without a redirect is just going to make information on the topic hard to find. You could try to write something more globalized at the base title, but if you could do that, you could just globalize the article to begin with.
When an article's title and scope are out of sync, there isn't always a right answer as to which one you update. But in cases like these, precedent has been against changing the title, generally because there is no deadline. See, for example, Talk:Mobile phones on aircraft#Requested move 19 March 2014. --BDD (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming and US-specificness 

message: I've removed this:
:[Dead Peasants] refers to the plot of Nikolai Gogol's novel Dead Souls.[  ]
The cited article does not say that the term comes from Dead Souls, or even mention the phrase "dead peasants".  It merely makes a comparison with the novel. In fact, the scheme in the novel is completely different.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Souls