Talk:J.G. Wentworth/Archives/2012

Fate?

I don't believe that fate has anything to do with a company? Shouldn't this be removed? "Fate Filed For Bankruptcy 2009 restructured" Valterre (talk) 13:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems pretty far from 'neutral', which is the guideline to follow Anneaholaward (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Employees/ Agents BIAS

Valterre

Valterre is another clear agent for JG wentworth,

Dear Valterre, stop making nonconstructive edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Informationnest (talk • contribs) 03:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Informationnest

Uh, no. I am recently unemployed. I should ask who do you work for Informationnest? The article was fine as it was, clearly there is some vandalism going on here Informationnest. Valterre (talk) 03:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Cash Now

Cash Now is clearly an agent for JG wentowrth, editing to meat his needs and removing references and links. his posts should no longer be allowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scamwatch (talk • contribs) 20:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Cash Now is J.G. Wentworth. We are focusing on providing facts about the company and a neutral point of view for the readers. We removed two links because they were SPAM posted by our competitors and were not factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cash Now (talk • contribs) 20:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You have an obvious conflict of interest and should not be editing this article. Read the information on your talk page. 98.248.40.19 (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Please stop spamming Wikipedia

Scamwatch (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Dear Cash Now, your have edited many times 100% accurate information on Wikipedia to a biased and non accurate version that serves your companies interest. You are not suppose to edit this post as you can not be unbiased. (as can be easily viewed in some extremely inaccurate and flattering statements in your edits.) Informationnest (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP EDITING THIS THREAD! your posts are being reverted and will continue to have that done to them. i will convert again this thread to the last state before your editing, and i hope that will be the last time ill have to do that (as will others), or this thread will be locked. please stop!

As per your request within this weak i will review this thread and if i find biased information that is likely placed by your competitors, i will edit it, however just because a link is to a competitor, and states accurate information, it doesn't constitute as biased.

Newtrality

Scamwatch (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Dear Tbhotch, please let me know if you feel that there are neutrality issues in current version.

• Not at all, this is why some editors should not edit articles where involve them like their favourite artists or the place where them live. Tbhotch^Talk 00:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Watch93

Watch93 is also a clear agent of J.G. Wentworth and is giving bias information.

Spamwatch22

SpamWatch22 is yet another J.G Wentworth Employee.

Source

I moved this section here until a source is found. I look a little, but couldn't find anything.

Abandoned Cases

I can't find a source for this either:

During the filling, the firm has abandoned a large amount of their at the time current cases.

Once a source is found for it, it can be put back in, i would think XinJeisan (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Here are a couple of sources to letters and law suits http://structuredsettlements.typepad.com/structured_settlements_4r/files/jg_wentworth_letter_to_fl_structured_settlement_annuitant_sept_17_2008.pdf http://jgw-sucks.com/files/JGW%20Cancellation%20Letter%2009-12-08.pdf Scamwatch (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Neither of these are reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia policy, as in general, primary sources are not allowed to be used as a source, especially the only source, for any topic in wikipedia. If this information was published in a newspaper, etc., it would be appropriate to put into the article space. Has it been published in a newspaper or some other reliable source like that? Until then, I don't think it should be put into the article. XinJeisan (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

there is an article out there, let me find it again, will only re-post once i find the article. 99.199.187.148 (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Found Sources

Informationnest (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC) i have found and provided a source, updated.

Status

Resolved Informationnest (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Commercials

J.G. Wentworth primary reason for previous success is its exposure through a range of commercials.

Their comercials usualy if not always include somebody yelling without any reason "its my money, and i need it now".

Some commercials feature "Mr. Wentworth" who is shown promising "cash now" in lieu of future amounts, he has become the most prominent of many faces in their advertising.

Recent commercials include a Wagnerian opera, "J.G. Wentworth success stories".

XinJeisan (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be good to put something about the commercials in this article, they are well known for them. Valterre (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

References

External Links

These are not necessary in external links. If there is information in these that should be placed in the main article, please write them into the main article. Otherwise, external links should be used for information that cannot be placed in the main article.

• http://www.toomre.com/JG_Wentworth_Enters_Chapter_11
• http://www.genexcapital.com/blog/?p=35
• http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1944239020090519

XinJeisan (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Information using homepage as reference

I don't think an article this controversial should have the company homepage used as a reference. I'll put the information here for now.

In 1991 J.G. Wentworth was founded as a merchant bank specializing in healthcare industry transactions. Over the next decade, they began purchasing structured settlements, lottery payments and inheritances from individuals for a lump sum of cash. In 2002 J.G. Wentworth reached the $1 billion mark in fundings. They then moved their headquarters from Center City, Philadelphia to Bryn Mawr, PA. Three years later J.G. Wentworth began working with Financial Professionals and created the J.G. Wentworth Annuity Purchase Program and reached the $2 billion mark in fundings. reference: http://www.jgwentworth.com/About/Company/History.aspx

It is impossible to be unbiased, Watch93 should have all of his edits reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Informationnest (talk • contribs) 21:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

All edits made are sourced by unbiased, professional sources. As long as a source is provided, the content must remain on the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Watch93 (talk • contribs)

J.G. Wentworth

There seem to be several editors with POV issues editing the J.G. Wentworth article, either people who are related to the company or who feel the company cheated them. I have tried to mediate the two sides, but, it doesn't seem to be working. If someone has advice or comments, it would be appreciated. Thanks. XinJeisan (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

66.46.48.130 (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC) i agree

Hi, came here as a result of the RFC. I haven't looked at the meat of the dispute yet, but I will be and will come back to add more comments in a bit. — e. ripley\^talk 19:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've looked through about the past two weeks of edits. Looks like lots of hit-and-run editing of a sometimes dubious nature (and sometimes helpful nature) by recently-registered accounts and IPs. We probably can't move forward too much on a stable version without their coming to the talk page to discuss the matter while it's protected, but hope springs eternal. Are there any proposed changes to the current version we ought to be discussing? — e. ripley\^talk 19:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The current article is not extensive enough and needs to be expanded. However, J.G. Wentworth employees should not be editing this article; nor should competitors, and it appears that both are doing so. Editing powers should therefore be limited to prevent bias from both sides. (N419BH (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC))

Well, for what it's worth, I have the article on my watchlist and am happy to help where needed once it's unprotected.— e. ripley\^talk 18:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

These recent edits make no sense and seem to be biased. Someone also tried to mark me as an employee - dude I wish I were an employee, I am unemployed. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valterre (talk • contribs) 01:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

this page is a duplicate and needs to be deleted

This page is biased and a duplicate - needs immediate deletion.

Thanks, Valterre (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Superfluous article should not be merged with this one

The information in the other article JUST appeared and should not be added to this one. The other article is biased and was probably created by an agent for a competitor to J.G. Wentworth. I question the neutrality of the other article quite heavily Valterre (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

What specifically are you taking issue with? I personally don't see any problems with the merged language on its face, so you need to make a more persuasive argument about what portions you think are biased. — e. ripley\^talk 14:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

User Informationnest is constantly vandalizing this page, please block this user's IP.

Valterre (talk) 04:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Informationnest (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC) Valterre keeps vandalizing this page, i have requested moderator review multiple times he is an employee for jg. wentworth.

Neutrality

Informationnest (talk) 04:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC) It is apparent that Valterre has a POV problem, he keeps editing it to bias versions, he is employed by J.G. Went worth. this is the reason this article was locked before, please ban the user from this article. I believe that my version is the last complete and neutral version, valterre has refused to communicate and simply edits out any derogatory facts about the company.

It is apparent that Informationnest is vandalizing this page. What is your angle Informationnest? Who do you work for? I am completely open to communication and just want to help build up the article to show the full history of the company. I am an out of work journalist in San Francisco trying to build up my reputation. The version that was there before you started your attack was really neutral and I put in a lot of research to write it. I am open to communication. Valterre (talk) 04:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Informationnest (talk) 04:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC) haha, ok, lets work together, i firmly believe that my version accurately describes everything yours does, and then some, why have you deleted the new-york section? you cant claim that jg is the largest company and use a source that is writen before their bankrupcy, stop changing orginazation to make it look better. as for you being independent, lets stop it... this is a joke, you have written a love commercial for J.G. Wentworth. dont play games. your spamming wiki and getting paid for it. Informationnest (talk) 04:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Just saying things does not make them so Informationnest. I am happy for us to work together. Why did you start with a wipe out of all my research on the company and their background? Please stop with the personal attacks, like the one you did earlier on my user page. Why do you keep attacking me but not offer up answers? Valterre (talk) 04:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Informationnest (talk) 04:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC) okay i am tired of your lies and edits, i will start with your version, DO NOT undo my edits without discussing them here first.Informationnest (talk) 04:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Both of you need to take a deep breath and read the rules of contributing to Wikipedia, particularly maintaining a neutral point of view, undue weight, verifiability of sourcing, and using reliable sources. Informationnest, in particular you need to stop insulting Valterre; personal attacks are inappropriate in every sense and can be a blockable offense. Wikipedia strives for an atmosphere of collegiality even when disagreeing; Wikipedia is not a battleground, nor is it a place to engage in Usenet discussion-style flame wars. Please stop insulting other contributors now, including throwing around unsubstantiated accusations about Valterre working for JG Wentworth, or suggesting that his edits are vandalism. They are not. It is a content dispute. — e. ripley\^talk 12:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Deconstructing

I am pasting here in the talk page what seems to be the disputed information that resulted in an edit war. Let's discuss the changes here, instead of reverting each other. It's not good for Wikipedia articles to be so unstable.

Prior to July 19th 2009, J.G. Wentworth (at the time the largest structured settlement purchasing company), was allowed to give any rate to their customers and has usually provided rates well above 25% (higher rate means a lower lump-sum payment to the client). Since a large percentage of J.G. Wentworth customers have not done any research, which has enabled J.G Wentworth to take advantage of them and charge very high rates (in some cases as high as 70%). This has strongly angered both the insurance companies who have structured the settlements to begin with, as well as the attorney general who is interested in protecting the consumers in his state.

Some of this may be able to be put into the article. A company's checkered past is completely fair game if it is properly sourced. However, I'm not sure that you have accurately summarized what this source says (a press release from the NY AG's office). In particular, it reads like an essay and doesn't do a very good job of presenting the source neutrally. I will attempt to rewrite a summation of the release myself.

"Until now, the purchase of structured settlements for up-front cash has been unregulated in New York and most other states," Spitzer said. Generally, those targeted by [J. G. Wentworth] through television and newspaper ads are unsophisticated when it comes to business and legal matters and are without significant means or other income. This historic agreement will provide a model 'bill of rights' for New Yorkers entering in to such contracts."

We generally don't use quotes in Wikipedia.

After growing frustration and J.G. Wentworth’s continuous abuse of their customers’ lack of research, Attorney General Spitzer has banned J.G. Wentworth from doing any and all business in New York until they decrease their rate to something more appropriate.

This source does not support the way you have summarized it here. It is clear that JG Wentworth and the state of New York entered into a contractual agreement for how JG Wentworth would conduct business in New York (probably to head off a lawsuit). But there's nothing here saying they were "banned ... fro mdoing any and all business in New York."

J.G Wentworth was banned from buying structured settlement deals in New York unless they agreed to the deal that spritzer has put in front of them. Under the agreement with the Attorney General, JGW will be limited to receiving a rate of no more than 25%, compounded monthly, of the total amount of future payments which it buys from New York consumers.

At this point, this information and the bullet points that follow would just be repetitive I think, once the other items are rewritten properly. In summation, the AG investigation is clearly relevant to the article and should be included somehow, but must be presented properly and in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. I will write a version myself today. — e. ripley\^talk 12:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah ok, that makes sense. How could I assist E. Ripley? Valterre (talk) 13:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

--- Awaiting your revision, thank you very much for all your help, i strongly appreciate it Informationnest (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

In 1999, the state of New York entered into a contract with J. G. Wentworth to help protect New Yorkers from selling their settlements at exorbitant rates (in some cases, the state said J. G. Wentworth had taken up to 75 percent of the total value of a future payment). The agreement stipulated that J. G. Wentworth could receive a rate of no more than 25 percent of the total amount of a future payment it had purchased from a citizen of the state of New York.[1] This was done because the state legislature had yet to pass a law regulating the industry. At the time, a J. G. Wentworth executive told the New York Times that the firm sought the agreement because of the rate at which its business had grown in recent years.[2]

Let me know what you think. — e. ripley\^talk 21:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Informationnest (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC) First of all, id like to thank you for taking all this time, and i really really apriciate it, a couple of notes though: J.G. Wentowrth has not sought the deal, they were not allowed to do business in NY until they sign a deal.

The rate of 25% was not of total value, it was the "discount rate" (which is a annual rate, like interest) that they were not allowed to exceed. The 75% is also referring to the discount rate (annually 75%).

other than that, it looks great, thank you very much. Informationnest (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this page has certainly seen a lot of action since I last looked. E. Ripley, since you are asking for feedback, how about this?

Prior to 1999 there was no state regulation for structured settlements in New York. Elliot Spitzer entered into a contract with J. G. Wentworth to help protect New Yorkers from selling their settlements at exorbitant rates. The agreement stipulated that J. G. Wentworth could receive a rate of no more than 25 percent of the total amount of a future payment it had purchased from a citizen of the state of New York.[3] At the time, a J. G. Wentworth executive told the New York Times that the firm sought the agreement because of the rate at which its business had grown in recent years.[4]

Anneaholaward (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

(just added more brackets for items that have wikipedia pages) Anneaholaward (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I like this. Thanks for the improvements. We can fix the discount rate information as we go along, so it's accurate. Informationnest, do you have a source that suggests that JG Wentworth did not seek the deal? Do you have one that says that they were not allowed to do business in New York until they signed it? (Because they had already been doing business in New York, clearly.) The Spitzer release does not support either assertion, though I'd be glad to see the text modified if you can point us to a source that would back it up. — e. ripley\^talk 14:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, sounds fine to me Valterre (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

History needs work

A lot of the company history has been removed for some reason, so I will add it back slowly to help the quality of the article. I think they had some background with the health care and insurance industry that was kind of interesting too. Anyone who wants to help is welcomeAnneaholaward (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I can help too, but with what? Valterre (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

An unregistered user has begun to vandalize this page: 66.183.31.224I love all things finance. (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

19:11, 31 January 2011 Rich.Sparrow edits

During an edit on 19:11, 31 January 2011 a user Rich.Sparrow has undid a Major update to this article by claiming it was vandalism, since the update was completely legitimate in my opinion, i believe his revision was disruptive in nature. It seams also apparent that Rich.Sparrow is associated with the corporation as all his posts are on this company and its partners. Derk23 (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Derk23, I like to assume good faith of my fellow editors and encourage you to do the same. Please keep comments on this page limited to the discussion of the article itself. Rich.Sparrow (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Please iterate on why you feel it is appropriate to undo the revision on this page? Derk23 (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I've declined the request for a third opinion in this case as there are no less than six people already involved in this discussion. My opinion would be the seventh, not the third. SnottyWong ^confabulate 18:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I still maintain these new edits are vandalism, but let me explain specifically why. After performing another review, I see this site used as a reference: http://www.jgw-sucks.com. Moreover, you use a specific pdf on that site, some kind of possibly faked private JGW document from an Attorney. I don't think that is a credible site. Do you currently own or maintain this site Derk23? Are you a former employee of J.G. Wentworth?

Rich.Sparrow (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Recent vandalism

Hello:

Recently an editor named Derk23 has been vandalizing this page. My suspicion is that this editor is the same person as Informationnest, Spamwatch22 ScamWatch, etc. Derk23's last edit was for three flags without notation in the discussion about what they were specifically for.

Flag 1. Was a talk page banner meant for talk pages asking for third party help

Flag 2. Was a banner relating to the page being a biography. This page is for a corporation.

Flag 3. Attacking the verifiability of the article and wording. What wording, specifically? Which claims have not been referenced?

The repeated edits done today sought to remove information that was properly sourced. Should the page be changed to a semi-protected or protected status?

Rich.Sparrow (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I would say not yet. If you feel strongly that the editors you cite are the same person, you should consider starting a sock puppet investigation. I'll watch the page for a bit. What I see concerns me as you two are accusing each other of vandalism and not engaging in discussion of the edits. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

A sock puppet investigation is probably warranted here as the same issue has been reoccurring every few months. An editor comes in an tries to prominently feature the company's bankruptcy, remove sourced information, etc. I will go ahead and do this if nobody else wants to jump in. Mr. Finance (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I must say, as a newcomer to this article who has no prior knowledge of J G Wentworth, the Derk23's changes were not obviously vandalism. The article did seem subtly promotional of the firm, and seemed to minimize negative information. I have no idea if there is any sock puppetry going on here or not, but this is not a conversation about vandalism. Thparkth (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

See my comments on the thread just above. Hopefully this will shed some light on why I identified this to be vandalism. Rich.Sparrow (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Issues with proposed rewrite

Hi.

I don't think this is a good revision or a serious one, quite honestly. I say this because you are taking out sourced and pretty neutral information about the company in favor of making unverified negative statements in ALL CAPS. This is not a serious rewrite. Mr. Finance (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Valterre, please be more specific, i see that you were responsible for building this versions to a large extent and put a lot of very pro J.G wenworth content in it. lets start in baby steps, is there anything inacurate with this:

Legal Issues

In January 26th 2011 Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Judge Anthony J. Mohr has filed a verdict of unfair business practices for referring their own attorneys to clients then having the seller pay for the attorney out of their purchase price. Therefore J.G. Wentworth (321 Henderson Receivables, a name J.G. Wenworth uses on all their contracts with sellers) actions against its own clients included fraud, misrepresentation and practices that were oppressive and unconscionable.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Derk23 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Derk23,

No, you should not post your edits as consensus has clearly not been reached. Look at my comments above. There are some serious credibility issues with citing sources like "JGW-sucks.com", making wild claims, using all caps, etc. The website you are sourcing clearly has no editorial oversight and does not meet the Wiki encyclopedic standard. The burden is on you here since you are contesting the current version built with solid references and consensus of multiple editors. Rich.Sparrow (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately i disagree with your statement that this is inaccurate,"consensus has clearly not been reached." the source is a court order, it is hosted on the governemnt of California, i still add the source to a Google page. I removed caps, anything else you feel is inaccurate?Derk23 (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Derk23, many of these terms are used in a technical sense. For example, consensus means that most editors have reached a point in the discussion where we more or less agree about what should be done. Rich.Sparrow is pointing out that since you wish to add information to the article, it is important that you provide good sources, see RS for the specifics for reliable sources. JGW-sucks.com is not what we'd call a reliable source. A court order isn't really any better, it's a primary source, and we avoid those whenever possible--since we are amateurs, we are not in a position to interpret them. For this kind of article, I would say the best sources are are articles from major newspapers and magazines. Can you find any such that support the additions you'd like to make? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Nuujinn, thank you for your explanation, here are additional indirect non biased articles: 1.

I'm sorry, but those are not reliable sources either. www.structuredsettlement-quotes.com is a vendor, and http://www.secondaryinsurancemarketblog.com is an attoneys website, and both appear to be involved in the industry. If the lawsuits' finding are noteworthy, it would have been covered in the press--what you need to find is something from a newspaper or magazine covering this issue. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Flags

The sources listed in this article seem to be legitimate, however I wonder about #7 and #21. I only say #21 because it is the company's home page and a better source could be found.... Daisyfi (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Commercials section

This section is sourced by press releases, which are not considered reliable sources here. It's basically spam, so I am going to remove it shortly, just a head's up to let folks know, --Nuujinn (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the section should be there as that is why the company is known. Those awards are fairly notable. I think the last paragraph was purely commercial so I removed it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarrenOutsky (talk • contribs) 21:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The commercials are actually the reason there is an article on the company at all, I looked at the history. This is not ipso facto situation. I mean that because they are mentioning commercials does not make the content itself commercial. I will do some research to verify my observation. Some of them are kind of funny in a way. Thank you WarrenOutsky (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with this editor about notability. Restoring content and adding flags for placeholder since other editor is doing research on sources. Daisyfi (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Securitizations

The securitizations should not have been removed from this article. I have a degree and ten years experience in finance. I can tell you it is pretty impressive in this economy to have class A notes rated Aaa by Moodys.

If the sources need improvement, as editors let's have that discussion instead of slashing notable content left and right without consensus. Daisyfi (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Commercials

If the information about the TV commercials is to be in both the lede and its own section, then I think it should at least be written differently instead of almost identical prose. I was hasty in deleting, but the content shouldn't be basically identical. Spell4yr (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point, makes the article less interesting to have duplicate info. I will work on this. Thanks for your help. Warren (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)