Talk:Asset protection

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

Proposed merger[edit]

First, I hate to pull rank, bur I am legally qualified and I have been a practioner in this area for over 30 years, trusts are trusts, insurance is insurance. The only link herein is because the solutions are somewhat similar but in reality different from practical and legal purposes. The API is similar to a property and casualty approach to the assets within, a trust is a legal envelope to only hold them, the two should not meetJlwiki2008 (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am marginally opposed to merging Asset protection and Asset-protection trust. Using a trust is only one method of asset protection, and raises issues that are unique to it rather than affecting asset protection generally. I would keep the articles split personally. But maybe the subject is too specialised to justify two (or possibly more) separate articles. Legis 07:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...but the article could use a bit of love and a tidy up. Legis 08:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without going into the specific differences, I would say keep the 2 categories seperate aswell (I'll try and add some useful content clean up the articles when time permits).

  • It would be better to merge the Asset-protection trust article with Protective trust and Spendthrift trust if the three articles are not grown into full-length encyclopedia articles in due course. It might be worth then linking from such an article to the concept of asset protection in general, but I am not sure what that means and I am none the wiser having read the Asset protection article - merger of the trusts articles with the Asset protection article would seem to be inappropriate while it is so poorly written in comparison and has apparent advertising throughout. Dooley (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eliminating Advertising[edit]

Interesting since this article only contains one reference and that is to the single provider of asset protection insurance, whats the problem, according to the original they invented it? I guess Cigarbill must have his own conflict, sorry Billy its easy to find out the name and the site (took me all of two minutes www.aseassurance.com), please leave your conflicts to yourself, we (inour office found the site and the link very helpfull)Jlwiki2008 (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am opposed to using this article as an advertising piece for those who make a living selling asset protection schemes. Therefore, I have deleted several such advertising references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cigarbill (talk • contribs) 04:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need for Sources[edit]

I agree take this piece of bad prose out.

The article contains the following statement: "Asset Protection began in the Middle Ages to keep the Government from foreclosing the land away from the peasants."

Just out of curiosity, when did peasants in the Middle Ages ever own land? I believe that a dispassionate historical inquiry will show that the differences over land ownership were between the King and his nobles, and that the peasants were subject to both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.4.47 (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems[edit]

The article was deleted today because it was composed of three separate copyrighted pieces online:

It was difficult to tell when the text on these sites was pasted into our article. However, the original research and synthesis made from the editing in the interims between the additions gave me no choice but to delete it all and start over.

There are thousands of references for which a new article on asset protection can be created. Wikipedia should have a good article on this subject instead of the mishmash of crap that was here yesterday. KrakatoaKatie 00:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is unfortunately still in a sad state: "There are many programs available to help an individual or business minimize and/or avoid your tax liability," and similar statements makes it sound like an advertisement again. I'm changing all the "you"s to sound more neutral, but actually the article just needs a proper rewrite. --Leviel (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

avoiding tax liability? that's called "felony" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.222.193 (talk) 06:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inadequate information[edit]

As to my knowledge ERISA does not cover 401(k) plans. Those plans are covered by some state legislation exemption laws - but not all. Therefore this page does not seem very reliable to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.54.90.230 (talk) 07:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Many SPAs promoting stein across many articles, etc."[edit]

user:Rhododendrites has removed 5 references from this article on January 19, 2015, saying rm refs -- many SPAs promoting stein across many articles, with many copyvios. another editor can feel free to re-add if deemed reliable/valuable.

I do not have access to these references however, others may. I will therefore revert this edit in the hope we can get some discussion going. For those interested the removed content was first inserted into this article in 2010 Ottawahitech (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to discuss, but you still haven't provided any rationale for restoring the material. I'm not sure what the date shows except that this is one of many neglected areas of Wikipedia. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You offered : another editor can feel free to re-add if deemed reliable/valuable -- so why are you reverting without proper dicussion? BTW it is not up to me to provide rationale - you are the one who should convince others that your removal of content is kosher. Ottawahitech (talk) 04:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's true I said that in my initial edit summary. That wasn't entirely clear. I didn't mean "just go ahead and revert with no explanation."
What I'm doing/did is removing it and presenting you with information: there was a widespread pattern of many accounts making very promotional edits and inserting links/refs to Stein's papers, spamming links to his websites, adding his name to various lists and articles as "legal expert" (sometimes customized based on the article subject), and so on. Did you actually look at the links you're restoring? First of all, they're almost all broken, but more importantly they're to a website called "maximumassetprotection.com/", which serves to promote Stein's law firm. But yes, some of them are [copyright questionable] copies of work published elsewhere, but the work is almost never linked anywhere other than one of his websites. The material is promotional and almost certainly the product of socking. The only reason I didn't file an SPI is because of the age of the accounts.
It is up to you to provide a rationale. I provided a pretty good one in the initial edit summary, which you could've asked about before reverting with no explanation. You still haven't provided a rationale. Even without all this, the WP:BURDEN is most often on the one who wants to include material. As far as I can tell your position is that you don't care if it was added by promotional accounts, if it links to possible copyright violations on an unreliable promotional site, if it might've been added by socks, if the links are broken, etc. ...because having refs is better than not? That or, as your first edit summary seems to suggest, you do not believe what I am saying about the material. Which is not preposterous, of course, as I haven't filed an SPI or come up with a diff-laden presentation.
What I shouldn't have left out as assumed in my initial edit summary: someone should revert if the material is deemed reliable/valuable [based on an assessment of the content of the references, finding them to be reliable and of high enough quality to add to this article despite the context of their removal]. My hunch is that there are much, much better sources out there for this topic. Why hang on to these? --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 06:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Asset protection. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asset_protection&oldid=1199100551"