Talk:Whole life insurance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Visible Policy link
Disclaimer: I added an external link to my own, completely non-commercial site, The Visible Policy. Please review for appropriateness. Obviously I feel the site is of high quality and a good fit for Wiki's article on Whole Life Insurance. Yet someone else should review for appropriateness. 2*6 09:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know User:Dozen, nor do I know insurance (which is why I'm looking it up on Wikipedia! ;^) ) but from my casual glance at The Visible Policy it seems to be a comprehensive description of the information that one individual accumulated in his quest for answers. Is the website original research? I don't know yet - I (or someone else) should check its citations for verifiability, especially in this case of a self-published source. Is it commercial? It sure doesn't seem to be. Can I vouch for it unreservedly? Not yet. Do I think that the author deserves kudos? Absolutely. --Eliyahu S Talk 06:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, Eliyahu. :) Let me be bold and answer some of your points. IMO, the VP site would classify as original research, which should be fine as an external link, right? I.e., the wiki article itself is not original research, it merely includes mention of something that is. What is a citation if not a pointer to someone else's original research? And yes, it is a self-published source (hence this very disclaimer to which we comment). Why should it be an exception to the "largely not accepted as sources" rule? Well, if the site itself doesn't convince you of its exceptionability, how about a peek into the pains I went to author it accurately and neutrally? See the Usenet thread whole life comparison with BTID. Most verifiability is self-contained within the site, though, which includes a facsimile of each of the annual statements I have received to date (example Statement for Policy Year 9). As far as being commercial, if it is I should get an award for the most boring commercial ever produced! :) There are no ads and it produces no income. The VP is careful to maintain a neutral point of view (for example, it never says that whole life is better than term, or vice versa). It wasn't easy to not let my opinions out though; they went into another site, the Life Insurance GlossPinion. – 2*6 10:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Two additional points. The article was written before I added the VP link. I.e., VP was not used as a reference for it. The link is in the section labeled "External links", not a section labeled "References". (Which, unfortunately, does not yet exist. I'll see if I can rectify that -- but not from my site!) The other point is to reinforce my site's verifiability. I had a 3rd party professionally evaluate my policy, and VP includes those results. – 2*6 13:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, Eliyahu. :) Let me be bold and answer some of your points. IMO, the VP site would classify as original research, which should be fine as an external link, right? I.e., the wiki article itself is not original research, it merely includes mention of something that is. What is a citation if not a pointer to someone else's original research? And yes, it is a self-published source (hence this very disclaimer to which we comment). Why should it be an exception to the "largely not accepted as sources" rule? Well, if the site itself doesn't convince you of its exceptionability, how about a peek into the pains I went to author it accurately and neutrally? See the Usenet thread whole life comparison with BTID. Most verifiability is self-contained within the site, though, which includes a facsimile of each of the annual statements I have received to date (example Statement for Policy Year 9). As far as being commercial, if it is I should get an award for the most boring commercial ever produced! :) There are no ads and it produces no income. The VP is careful to maintain a neutral point of view (for example, it never says that whole life is better than term, or vice versa). It wasn't easy to not let my opinions out though; they went into another site, the Life Insurance GlossPinion. – 2*6 10:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Removed globalize and unreferenced templates
The article has been expanded. It includes certain key Commonwealth terms and 4 footnotes. It is still not perfect, but IMO has been globalized sufficiently to warrant removal of globalize tag. The footnots so far are confined mostly to new information I added. I've looked for citations on what earlier others wrote, but so far no luck. My personal experience tells me that stuff is factual, and I don't want to completely rewrite a basically good article just because I personally haven't found the sources used by earlier authors. – 2*6 23:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Assurance vs Insurance
There tends to be a use of both life insurance and life assurance these days. The fact a company can market a product and call it Whole of Life Insurance is irrelevant to the correct generic term. The former covers events that might happen (e.g. car theft) whereas the second is for something that is a question of WHEN? (e.g. death) rather than IF? [1]. That said, it would not be incorrect for a fixed term policy to be called life insurance as death is not necessarily going to occur in the set term. However, when one talks of a Whole of Life contract, there is no grey area, the correct noun is Assurance. Dainamo 10:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
