Talk:Structured settlement

message: What is needed to remove the flag for this article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anneaholaward (talk • contribs) 06:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is needed? 

message: The section with only one source is the Legal Structure part. Anneaholaward (talk) 06:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources needed for Legal Structure section 

message: The flag was several years old and out of date. There are 5 references and 4 external sources.Anneaholaward (talk) 02:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed lack of sources flag 

message: The structured settlements in the US section seems to lack specifics about the types of structures settlements. There are temporary life annuties, lump sum, etc. I will start working on this part if nobody here objects. I love all things finance. (talk) 05:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Break out of types of structured settlements 

message: The history of structured settlements is living in the introduction right now and it possibly warrants its own section with more detail. If nobody objects I can create this myself.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glen.Daler (talk • contribs) 22:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section Needed 

message: The section on JG Wentworth doesn't really belong here, does it?  It's amusing, but
#It is a pop culture reference, which is discouraged
#It contains a commercial endorsement
#It expresses personal opinions
To me, it just seems out of place in what is otherwise a serious financial article. Timrprobocom (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The info and links have been removed until they can be sourced to a significant news articles related to this subject, not just press releases and obscure awards. Please see WP:RS and WP:SPAM. Flowanda | Talk 08:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns 

message: Hi,
I re-read this article and did not detect issues with it being global. I have removed the flag. Mr. Finance (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globalization flag 

message: WarrenOutsky, why do you keep removing my edits about interest rates? On the View History page, you give your reason as "unsourced information." So what? Wikipedia has a lot of unsourced information, and there are even entire articles with no sources given. I believe what's important is that content be *true*. What argument do you have that it is false or irrelevant that high interest rates were a cause, or at least a catalyst, of the growth of structured settlements in the early 1980's?
I worked for a life insurance company in the structured settlements unit during that era. I was in charge of the pricing of annuity contracts for structured settlements and had first-hand knowledge about what level of interest rates we needed to use to be competitive, and I could determine pretty closely what interest rates competitors were using. I talked with claims people, who were well aware of the saleability of deferred payments as an alternative to a lump sum and how high interest rates made that possible. Do you have first-hand or even lesser-hand knowledge to the contrary?
98.228.186.88 (talk) 14:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You both might want to take a look at the Wiki identifying reliable source page. These guidelines should help you. Warren (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interest rates, imputed interest 

message: Hello.
It would appear we have an IP editor removing content on our hands. I read through some history and saw a lot of IP editors adding their company links and then blanking out section content. Daisyfi (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP editor section blanking 

message: This article came to my attention because it was mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Structured_settlement. I didn't get past the first sentence without seeing problems.
First a nit-pick. Structured settlements shouldn't be called "insurance arrangements" This is a subtle point, and I'll come back to it, Let's see if we can reach a  consensus.
Second, while the phrase "compromise a statutory periodic payment obligation" can be found on many sites, a cursory glance suggests all have copied form Wikipedia. We should be honored, but more embarrassed. Before changing this, if someone can show me that the word "compromise" has an ordinary meaning that I've missed, please let me know.
Third, the last sentence of the first paragraph needs rewriting; the present value is lower than a lump sum for all positive interest rates. I think the original author may have been trying to make a point, but it needs work.
However, the central issue is whether the reference to J. D. Wentworth belongs in the article.
On the positive side of the ledger, one can imagine that someone reading about structured settlements might wonder who are the largest buyers. So it isn't a slam-dunk conclusion that the material is without merit. On the other hand, we have an article about another  financial instrument, the bond, and after a quick glance I do not see a list of the largest buyers. Similarly, our article on Common stock doesn't mention the largest buyers. Neither of these examples are definitive, they are merely suggestive. It still may be appropriate to mention buyers. However, if buyers are to be mentioned, I think they ought to be mentioned in a discussion of buyers in general, with a list or description of the largest entities in the market, rather than just citing one player in the market. Furthermore, if the reader is interested in the identities of buyers, they are interested in the identities of buyers, and a discussion of an ad campaign seems rather gratuitous.
Consequently, I am removing the reference, but open to a discussion about how to include such information.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the comments at ANI and the edit history of the article, I would have prefered it not be blanked until consensus is clarified to be for the removal. That said, I do agree with your reasoning. The only sentence in that text which seemed appropriate was the first one - and that one only in the context of if we were to have a sourced section discussing the larget players in that market. On a secondary subject, I've haven't been clear on the section header "Appears in" which contained the disputed text. Was this supposed to be equivalent to an "In popular culture" section? If so, that seems an odd section for an article about a financial instrument.  The remaining mention in that section doesn't help make the purpose of the section any clearer. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I contemplated proposing removal, and debating, for the reason you suggest. However, as written, it is not a close call. I daresay less than one in a hundred editors, excluding those employed by the company, would support the inclusion of that sentence, as written. In other cases, while I support removal, I decided not to be bold, and to ask for consensus. In the case of the copyright concerns, I would like to see prompt action, as we generally err on the side of caution, which means exclude until we can justify inclusion. However, the items I've observed are in a gray zone, phrase arguably short enough to be fair use, so I am comfortable waiting while the contributing editors clean up the referencing.SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs work 

message: The section "Purchasers of Structured Settlements" is properly tagged as problematic. The first two sentences are fine, but could use a reference. The rest is poorly written, and, as noted OR. It needs a lot of work to salvage it. If someone wants to take a stab at it, let see some suggestions. I don't think it is worth saving, but if someone can clean it up, maybe it can be kept. Other opinions?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that only the first two sentences have salvageable material - although they seem self-evident to me. At best, they could be merged into another section. There's just not enough material to justify its own section. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The section "Purchasers of Structured Settlements" needs work. Let's discuss 

message: It is troubling to see so much language which is not referenced, and may well be a copyright violation. For example, one of the sentences in this edit is identical to language in the brochure at [http://www.nssta.com/blog/explaining-structured-settlements-constructive-receipt this site. Exact use of phrasing or even light paraphrasing should be avoided. If there is a need to use an exact phrase, it should qualify under fair use, be set off in quotes, and properly referenced.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I would fully support the pruning of material that has copyvio concerns. For unreferenced material that isn't an obvious copyvio I generally prefer tagging to allow time for those interrested in the article to clean-up. If it's not cleaned up in a reasonable aount of time, then I support the removal of that content as well. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with this approach. I have some time constraints at the moment, so cannot look into it more at the moment, but a number of the phrases in the article have the feel of being borrowed, so I hope editors who added them will work on improving, to avoid the need for pruning. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

text: How can I help?Warren (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright concerns