Talk:Actuary/Archive 3

Johan de Witt
The following was added by

I've commented it out pending verification and citations. Does anyone have any reliable sources for this? And wikipedia itself cannot be used as a source for wiki (and I don't understand Dutch : -- Avi 19:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Once again, no statements in that paragraph are sourced, and one wikipedia article may never be brought as a source for another article. All those sentences on the de Witt article are also unsourced. Until verifiable, reliable sources can be brought for those claims, they cannot remain in the article, especially as it is a featured article, it must be held to the absolutely highest standards of Wikipedia. -- Avi 22:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Fictional actuaries part 3
Hi User:Avraham, I note your question about whether the following fictional character is notable (deleted text below):


 * Richard Ramsay: Richard is portrayed by Andrew McCarthy and is from the movie Escape Clause. To quote TVguide.com "The makers of this direct-to-video release thought the world was ready for a thriller about an insurance actuary. They thought wrong."

As someone relatively new to wikipedia, I must admit I am not familar with guidelines on notability - do they apply to fictional characters? Would you support a link to a new page "Fictional Actuaries"? There is plenty of material. Actuary Australia has on several occasions discussed this (September 03, April 04, May04 editions)

http://www.actuaries.asn.au/PublicationAndResearch/Library/AA?docType=Publication_AA&docTypeID=226&year=Select%20Year

Actuarial disco boy 04:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * main tage added at "Fictional" section. Thanks -- Avi 15:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Mainpage
SWEET! -- Avi 05:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Fictional actuary - Fight Club
The narrator of Fight Club played by Edward Norton is an actuary. would that count towards fictional actuaries ?
 * If that's true then yes, definatly. Its too specific from the film for me to remeber, and the fight club article says he works for a car company recalling defective products, but we aren't supposed to use internal refences. Could you cite this claim? - Jack (talk) 10:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The narrator in Fight Club is not an actuary. He inspects defective cars and notes how many have gone wrong due to the car company's negligence. This is not at all actuarial work, especially as he does not do it for insurance purposes but rather to find out the car manufacturer's breakdown rate.  Let me try and clarify what it is about.  An actuary would not typically go out on site and investigate claims.  Other people would do that and then the actuary would then use that claim-frequency information (coupled with the financial impact of the claim) to estimate the insurance company's liablities.  It is a mathematical office job, we do not go and check out car wreckages or attend funerals to ensure life insurance claims are valid.  Typically you're dealing with thousands or even millions of policies and claims as an actuary; any individual one is of little interest to you, rather the overall statistical happenings are what is of importance.--Zoso Jade 11:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

actually i just saw it on the wikipedia entry for fight club that the narrator is an actuary yesterday and today i see actuary is the featred article ... so it just rang a bell... i dont have any source/citation .. thought someone might know considering its there on the fight club page ..

Hi I have moved this to the Fictional Actuaries page - the debate can continue there. cheers Actuarial disco boy 21:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Today's featured article...
Congratulations, one and all, though I daresay a number of vandalisms may be impending.--Zoso Jade 11:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well done!! cheers Actuarial disco boy 20:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

That was fun -- Avi 00:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Real-Life Actuaries
Granted, it's easy work that pays incredibly well, especially once you've passed the 10 actuarial exams and become a Fellow of the Society of Actuaries. However, many people who are actuaries have incredibly poor social skills. You wouldn't believe the number of people who are in the field who have the smarts to pass all ten exams, yet are in real life socially-retarded. In addition, actuaries make mistakes left and right. They are not perfect - although they promote the illusion that they are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.36.184.212 (talk • contribs) 08:56, September 10, 2006   (UTC)


 * Point being?--Zoso Jade 14:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Not to mention that that is a rather poor and outdated stereotype. While I know a number of "nerd"-type actuaries, I know a greater number who are their company representatives at various financial events, and are suave, polished, and have impressive social skills. [[image:smile.gif]] -- Avi 16:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply to User Avraham: One apple does not the whole bushel represent. Think about it. I thought this was an encyclopedia. EamonnPKeane 17:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It is. No one actuary credibly represents the profession as a whole, either way, stereotypes notwithstanding. So, your point is? -- Avi 18:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I've worked with actuaries. The above comments are true. Try working with some and see for yourself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.37.188.184 (talk • contribs) 17:35, September 10, 2006   (UTC)


 * LOL. I am one and work with around another 20-30 [[image:smile.gif]] -- Avi 21:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Then it doesn't seem that you're any more impartial than the guy critical of actuaries. Actually, since you ARE an actuary and work WITH actuaries, your statements are more suspect, dontcha think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.59.204.129 (talk • contribs) 09:02, September 11, 2006   (UTC)
 * What on earth is the point of all this? Avi quite politely said that the above statement was a ridiculous generalisation.  He didn't counter by claiming that all actuaries are warm, fuzzy, good-looking individuals.  How is he excluded from pointing out a pointless stereotype?  Or are you quite seriously going to sit here and claim that all actuaries (i.e. tens of thousands of people the world over) fit the profile?  What is all this doing on Wikipedia anyway?  If above poster hates actuaries, I advise he quit whatever awful job keeps putting him contact with them, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox.--Zoso Jade 13:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

"Praise" style of summary in main page
With no intention to undervalue the actuary profession, I find that the summary in Featured Article section in the main page is phrased a bit too much as a praise to the profession, taking more words to mention what experts actuaries are, mentioning explicitly the depth of skills they require, etc. I think the summary should focus more NPOV-alike on the essence of the profession, and not on the amount of virtues and responsibilities the profession requires (as many others do).

The style of text in the Featured Article section in the main page seems more like the summary of an "elite insurance force". -- Zoopee 22:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I had the same thought when I read the summary on the main page. "Actuaries are highly trained experts with a deep understanding of financial security systems, their reasons for being, their complexity, their mathematics, and the way they work".   This text is not contained in the article, "highly trained" and "deep understanding", when combined together in one sentence at the beginning of the summary, doesn't look NPOV at all.  --Xyzzyplugh 22:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Approximately ten years of examinations after college should qualify as "highly trained" in a completely impartial sense. -- Avi 03:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

That is nonsensical. The ability to ace multiple choice exams after having taken a review course (more than likely the same courses, multiple times) does not convey either virtuousness or professionalism or respect. The actuarial exams serve as a gatekeeper, keeping the number of acutaries artificially low and their salaries grossly inflated. Perhaps this truly explains the fallacy that actuaries are "highly trained". It's a scam to convince the public that they are more important than they really are. Remember, most actuarial work can be automated/computerized, and the work itself is determined and regulated by law. So, actuaries need no creativity or business savvy, and rarely if ever exhibit any true common sense. E.g.: If a client needs to reduce their annual defined benefit pension plan cost, they "suggest" to the actuary that they need to increase their pension plan's expected rate of return of invested assets. The actuary willingly "complies". Sound like professionalism to you? Or maybe just the common sense to keep the client happy, and the invoices paid, regardless of whether the acutarial report truly reflects the needs of the pension plan participants. [Hint: People who have actually worked with actuaries read and post here.] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.108.205.26 (talk • contribs) 06:56, September 11, 2006   (UTC)


 * Not highly trained? Methinks someone has not taken an actuarial exam in his or her life.  I don't know about elsewhere but the UK doesn't have any multiple choice exams.  Here's the CT4 exam (just the fourth of 15 exams) I did in April for you to try your hand at .  I know people with afirst class degree in subjects ranging from math to astrophysics at universities such as Oxford, the LSE and Cambridge who still failed said exams and I don't think anyone who knows anything about actuaries would contest the statement "highly trained".  Your statements on a perceived lack of "professionalism" and even "respect" are far less NPOV than the article so I don't see how they are constructive.  If you want to prove that actuaries aren't really all that important, please feel free to make your point by pointing out the numerous successful insurance sectors in countries without actuaries.  Also handy will be an alternative to using actuarial math for insurance products... perhaps rolling a die?  Or maybe some sort of astrological methodology?--Zoso Jade 13:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the British actuarial societies have different exams, but at the very least the first 3 exams given by the Society of Actuaries in America are indeed multiple choice (which, granted, you still have to work out to get the correct answer). Regardless of the format, however, everyone takes review courses and crams for the exams, just like with any other certification exams - the CPA exam included. So, again, just because someone can pass a slew of exams means only that they crammed for a particularly narrow subject and passed an exam. Most people do not pass these actuarial exams on their first try - it takes 2 to 3 attempts for most people. Anyone who denies that the exams are used as a "gatekeeper" to keep people out of the profession is living in a state of denial. 90% of the material on these exams is NEVER used in the real world by 90% of actuaries. Everything is reduced to computer programs that clerks can and do run in the normal course of the business day. Also, passing some pen and paper exams means nothing re common sense and integrity. Finally, your comment re "astrological methodology" as a comeback response only highlights how immature and socially retarded actuaries are. Thanks for proving the above poster right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.59.204.129 (talk • contribs) 09:35, September 11, 2006   (UTC)


 * There is something rather ironic about being called immature by a person who has to sink to personal insults to make a point (though, possibly due to my social retardation, I'm struggling to get what the point is). What do you do, dear sir?  I take it you must belong to a profession where all are above reproach?  Do I believe that there is a lot of hoop-jumping in the actuarial exams?  I do.  However to attempt to make the point that the exams are unnecessarily difficult and serve as little else than a barrier while simultaneously claiming that the actuaries who did make the cut make too many mistakes sounds contradictory to me.  --Zoso Jade 13:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You are making a typical actuary's mistake: Not reading carefully what is before your eyes, and jumping to erroneous conclusions. I've seen many an actuary do that, often. So I see it again. Good bye. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.59.204.129 (talk • contribs) 14:32, September 11, 2006  (UTC)

Yupe siounds like actuaries are better than others. Leaves you with some annoyance, reading it... And on a second thought (and a secon re-read) I think the article needs re-wrtiging. Seriouslly!? the first paragraph, the one that has to be the main and broad introduction of what it is BADLY written! It is too technical, this technical aspect can be moved to later paragraphs, and has to be simplified. Afterall this is a general encyclopedia entry, not a specialised text, while specialised bits should be stated later on! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.68.200.21 (talk • contribs) 03:41, September 11, 2006   (UTC)


 * Anon, if you feel you can do better, may I encouage you to be bold and make some edits! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I agree that the feature summary did sound a bit self-praising with statements about "deep understandings" of financial matters but I think the article itself is a bit better at sounding neutral. I can see where the anonymous poster is coming from on the first bit of the article; if you knew nothing about actuaries going into it you'd probably give up at line 3 but I think it may be best if a non-actuary gives it a full an proper review so that we can note what about it makes it too technical/ boring... --Zoso Jade 14:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a paraphrase of the Be an Actuary website. -- Avi 15:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Actuaries certainly have a reputation for being very boring, and this article does nothing to dispel that. There are only 2 images in the article. Even worse, the lead paragraphs contain mind-numbing lists embedded within the text.  For example, the SECOND paragraph has 4 sentences, each of which is a list.


 * Actuaries' insurance disciplines may be classified as life, health, pensions, annuities, and asset management, social welfare programs, property, casualty, liability, general insurance and reinsurance. Life, health, and pension actuaries deal with mortality risk, morbidity, and consumer choice regarding the ongoing utilization of drugs and medical services risk, and investment risk. Products prominent in their work include life insurance, annuities, pensions, mortgage and credit insurance, short and long term disability, and medical, dental, health savings accounts and long term care insurance. In addition to these risks, social insurance programs are greatly influenced by public opinion, politics, budget constraints, changing demographics and other factors such as medical technology, inflation and cost of living considerations (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2005).


 * The 1st sentence is a list of 11 disciplines, the 2nd is a jumble of interrelated lists. The 3rd paragraph is a list of 11 products.  The 4th sentence is a list of 7 influences.  Yawn


 * C'mon folks! You can do better than that. Madman 13:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Referencing system
Can we switch it to the ref system? - Ta bu shi da yu 22:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As the one who wrote most of the article, I specifically did not use cite.php here. According to Citing sources there should be no change to the style. Thank you -- Avi 03:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Fictional Actuaries pt5-Along Came Polly
Having just had the misfortune of watching Along Came Polly, I'm not sure he is an actuary. Certainly the word is not used in the movie (he is referred to as a 'risk assesment expert'). Does anyone have any evidence that Ben Stiller's character is an actuary? Actuarial disco boy 20:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I have now deleted this and will change the fictional actuaries page too Actuarial disco boy 19:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

exam details
Please revert the exam details. I am responding to the comment that "The exam details are more minutia, and not necessarily global either, and so don't belong in lead, IMO. Please discuss on talk if you disagree)". IMHO, I disagree.  This is key, as the actuary examination process is the gold standard globally these days, and in fact in most jurisdictions is standard by which one knows that a person qualifies as an actuary -- the subject of the article. --Epeefleche 02:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The examination process is different throught the world. For example, I am credentialed by the Casualty Actuarial Society, whose exams differ from the Society of Actuaries as well as the Association of Pension actuaries, and that is just in the United States. Canada, the UK, Mexico, India, Spain, France, etc. all have different standards, someof which have no exam process but are more along the lines of university education, so to harp on exams right at the top is not appropriate in my opinion. There is a section on exams in this article, and more detail (or there should be) in the articles on the various associations like the CAS/SOA/AAA, where it truly belongs. -- Avi 02:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Fictional Actuaries Pt 6
Hi I have deleted billion dollar bubble as it already appears on the fictional actuaries page and as I'm not sure the movie will be notable among non actuaries Actuarial disco boy 19:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's shown at every CAS Course on professionalism [[image:smile.png]] -- Avi 23:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarification on what an actuary actually does
Let's say an actuary works for a life insurance firm. Would part of his job entail reviewing potential clients and establishing an estimated life expectancy? You'll have to excuse my ignorance, I've never spoken to an actuary before, and I didn't seem to find the answer to this exact question in the article. I'm asking for two reasons: the first is that I'm currently at work on a short story that involves a person performing the task I described above, and I need to know if that's the job of an actuary. The second is that if an actuary doesn't perform this task, it should probably be noted in the article, as I'm sure I wouldn't be the first person to have made this misguided assumption. Jeff Silvers 01:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

An actuary would not look at any individual person to estimate their life expectancy. Actuaries deal with whole populations; given the number of policyholders in a particular Life insurer in the UK (hundreds of thousands), we can estimate how many will die each year to a good degree of accuracy based on simple info such as age, sex and whether or not the person is a smoker. No one goes through each policy any more but rather they are done with computer programs called models. But that isn't the end. There is a great misunderstanding with actuaries that most of what we do is to do with probability of dying; rather this is just the underlying issue. It's the finance we calculate. There is no point in an insurer just knowing how many people are going to die; if they're all poor people expecting payouts of $50,000 then the impact is far less important than they are if they're all rich people expecting payouts of $5 million. Insurers are interested in their financial liability. How much they're going to have to payout each year. This may be largely determined by death rate, but the finance is really the tricky part... Life insurance policies aren't very simple anymore. Now we have people whose policies are linked to the NYSE, we have joint policies so a certain amount is paid out if the husband dies, another if the wife does, and yet another if both do. In the UK we have with-profits policies where the policyholder's get profits even without making claims. Also paying out $100,000 today is vastly different from paying it out ten years from now. When claims are going to be made it of utmost importance. There are thousands of other complications meaning it would be impractical to perform calculations on a person by person basis.

The job you described is probably closer to what (I imagine) an underwriter does. They're more about the collection and assessing of data. As an actuary you simply get all the data for every policyholder presented to you on a database and then you work with it (usually by passing it through an actuarial model). I hope this helps.--Zoso Jade 07:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And those are life actuaries. There are also pension and casualty actuaries who deal with pensions and various risk events respectively (like car accidents, workers compensation, slip&falls, product liability, etc.) -- Avi 13:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment: WSJ "top jobs" survey
I edited the article to temper promotion of the profession via the WSJ article. This is an important edit because we don't want our children to read Wikipedia, be told that Actuaries have "top jobs," and blindly use that unchallenged point of view to select their careers. I know a few people from college who used a similar survey to select the actuarial profession, only to realize they had made a mistake. In judging the merits of the survey, we need only look at its results. It under-ranks numerous highly sought after and competitive jobs and over-ranks unwanted jobs. --75.16.78.107 18:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * However, that is your opinion, and posting in the article would violate original research. If you can find a suitably reliable and verifiable source for that opinion, then that can be added with the proper citations. -- Avi 23:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As the user stated, he/she was only trying to balance a clearly flawed "study," which our children might rely on to select an undesirable career. I agree with 75.16.78.107 that the study is flawed. If given their choice of careers, no one would choose the ten on that list. A study which lacks credibility should not be allowed on Wikipedia without challenge. Below is the edit which you deleted. I have asked for comments on your edit.


 * "The survey used six key criteria to rank jobs: environment, income, employment outlook, physical demands, security and stress. Students using the survey to select careers should be careful to note the subjective nature of the criteria and the perplexing results of the study. For example the survey states that paralegals have better jobs than attorneys. In reality paralegals work for attorneys. 


 * Most importantly Avi, should you, an actuary, be making this decision? I think an ethical Wikipediaer avoids editing articles for which he holds a bias.--75.4.244.221 02:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with bias. Wikipedia does not allow personal commentary in articles; everything must have another source. Original synthesis of existing sources to create a new, unpublished, conclusion is also forbidden under No original research. By all means, if you find this hypothesis published in a reliable source, it should be added, but ones own conclusions are expressly forbidden to be added to articles. Familiarization with wikipedia policy will greatly enhance your ability to contribute to the project -- Avi 03:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is that you can't prove a negative. Your policy would result in Wikipedia being filled with gonzo studies, without any attempt to moderate their impact. Regarding bias, you are an actuary, aren't you? I've read your edit history, and it seems you only edit articles on a few topics for which you feel very strongly. I would recommend you stay away from such articles and only edit articles for which you have a neutral point of view.--75.4.244.221 03:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to get going and can't promise I'll be back to this page, so excuse me if I don't reply to your response.--75.4.244.221 03:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

A few points: The solution is to add back the parts which are not POV.
 * 1) The policy is not “mine”, but wikipedia's as a whole.
 * 2) The policy does not mean that wikipedia is filled with “gonzo” studies, because improper studies are almost always repudiated by published reliable and verifiable sources.
 * 3) Regarding bias, I believe you are laboring under a misunderstanding of WP:NPOV. It does not mean that one must approach an article as having a lobotomy. It means that all significant points-of-view must be described in the article in proportion to their acceptance/significance. But in no way shape or form does it mean that the policies of WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS are placed in abeyance.
 * 4) The fact that I am an actuary does not mean that I cannot adhere to WP:NPOV anymore than the fact that you are an IP editor means that you cannot.
 * 5) I have over 9000 edits in over 3200 different articles in the english wikipedia project, so I believe you are somewhat mistaken in your assumptions about my edit history as well [[image:smile.gif]] -- Avi 03:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The original edit stated: "The survey used six key criteria to rank jobs: environment, income, employment outlook, physical demands, security and stress. Students using the survey to select careers should be careful to note the subjective nature of the criteria and the perplexing results of the study. For example the survey states that paralegals have better jobs than attorneys. In reality paralegals work for attorneys."
 * I added the following, which reports only the results of the study and contains no POV: "The survey used six key criteria to rank jobs: environment, income, employment outlook, physical demands, security and stress. The survey goes on to state that paralegals have better jobs than attorneys, biologists have better jobs than doctors, and accountants have better jobs than CEOs."

--Greenocean1 15:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The above, however, is an original conclusion drawn by a wikipedia editor, unless that very sentence, or a reasonable facsimile thereof, can be found in another acceptable source. As it currently stands it violates WP:OR, I am afraid, and needs to be removed per wikipedia policy. -- Avi 15:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No no Avi. My edit didn't include the part you quote above "Students . . . " My edit only reported the basis of the study and its results. This is factual information and not POV. The edit I made is below.

--Greenocean1 15:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Greenocean, Coming in late on this discussion, I cannot help but feel that your statement does in fact violate NPOV through implied sarcasm. It seems to be written with an agenda and that is to discredit the survey.  Your assumption that doctors definitely have better jobs than biologists is biased within itself.  I don't know for certain that biologists are just failed doctors.  This survey was based on a variety of factors that, at least to me, seem reasonable in their judgement.  I don't think it is a coincidence that every job you hinted was obviously better was higher paying than the "inferior" job.


 * On the topic of actuaries in particular, if your children come on this site and read about the profession, they would do well to read the study section of the page. You talk about tempering the article but there is much mention, in this section, of the high fail rates and frustrations that actuarial students face.  I'm not sure what your experience is with actuaries but I have seldom heard ill of the profession (bar the exams, of which I have heard - and said - much ill) by its own members.  I don't have numbers to hand but I know in the UK the rate of leaving the profession for qualifieds is one of the lowest for any profession.  Few professions sustain such large salaries for so few hours so I'm not entirely sure what your so scared of your children experiencing.  What, exactly, is the problem with them expressing an interest in such a terrible profession?--Zoso Jade 09:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The question of whether or not to keep the "the survey goes on to state..." portion boils down to this: is that statement intended to push a certain viewpoint regarding actuaries? If so, then it's N POV.  If not, then it's irrelevant.  Either way, it doesn't belong in the article. Jeff Silvers 17:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoops. Meant to say POV. Jeff Silvers 23:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, the ranking of those jobs is over a number of criteria. For example, yes lawyers make much more than paralegals, but they also work hours that often lead to medical complicatinos such as heart attacks and strokes, they leave school usually over US$100,000 in debt, and if they do not make partner in a few years may burn out. So the interpretation being supplied by the implied sarcasm in the sentence is purely a POV of the author, and, I believe, has nothing to do directly with actuaries or the facts in this article, and it does not belong. -- Avi 20:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The line "The survey goes on to state that paralegals have better jobs than attorneys, biologists have better jobs than doctors, and accountants have better jobs than CEOs" contains only fact. It doesn't say doctors have better jobs than biologists, or that biologists are failed doctors. It doesn't say actuaries don't have excellent jobs. Those are things you read into the facts. This edit simply reconciles, in a fair and balanced way, the dispute between Avi and the original editor. I think it should stay. Further, I agree that since Avi and Zozo Jade are actuaries, the ethical thing would be for them to avoid involvement in this dispute. --Greenocean1 00:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

But its inclusion in this article is only to poke implied snide assertions about the study. The facts are what they are, if you feel it flawed, by all means, have a similar study published in a reliable and verifiable source and include it here. Secondly, I would recommend you carefully revisit WP:NPOV, as you seem to be under a fundemental misconception as to what it means. Thirdly, I suggest you read WP:OWN as well. Noone own any article, and asking for people not to edit, especially if they are experts in the field, smacks of a violation of WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL. Thank you. -- Avi 00:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "But its inclusion in this article is only to poke implied snide assertions about the study." That is merely your perception of the facts, and is your POV. Again I point out the edit contains only fact and does not state anything negative about actuaries or the study. Please stop being so insecure about the desirability of your profession. If it's really a good profession then why do you care about such a small edit? --Greenocean1 18:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me start by saying that I'm an actuary (Hi Avi!) and that I don't put any trust in surveys of "the best place to live," "the best car to drive," or "the best job in America."


 * Having made those disclaimers, I have a few thoughts about the paragraph in question.


 * First, the final sentence of the paragraph sticks out like a sore thumb because it has nothing to do with the first two sentences. If it must stay, find some way to tie it to the rest of the paragraph.


 * Second, I agree with Avi that the final sentence is loaded with value judgments. Why not mention some of the the other top jobs in the survey (paralegal, astronomer) and mention some that didn't make the top ten (doctors, lawyers) -- without comparing biologists and doctors, paralegals and lawyers, etc.? In my opinion, that helps to remove the value judgment.


 * Finally, the final sentence is grammatically inconsistent with the rest of the paragraph. "A WSJ survey listed actuary. The survey used. The survey goes on to state." Malik Shabazz 20:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Greenocean, the concept that one cannot edit an occupational article on Wikipedia if one is a member of the occupation is absurd. If I want to find out more about the medical profession, I ask one of my doctor friends.  I don't approach a banker or a bus driver, for instance, and ask what the perks of being a doctor are, because I think an actual doctor will be too biased.  Bias on Wikipedia is governed by strict and lengthy rules set out for the website.  Exactly who is editing the article, or whatever bias they may personally have is rendered irrelevant as all content added must:


 * a. Be relevant (which your proposed insertion is not)
 * b. Not express a point of view as fact


 * I actually disagree with Malik that you can still slip that info in by just listing other professions. It is irrelevant.  I am not saying this to glorify the actuarial profession; I am saying it because you want to paste irrelevant information on a site in order to express your own bias.  It has nothing to do with the actuarial profession.  To make my post constructive, I'll tell you what you can do. You can  create a separate article on the WSJ rankings, list all the professions you like there and then link to your page here.  In that situation any interested reader can go to that page, review the list of professions and decide on their own whether they consider the list absurd.  But you cannot hand pick and choose a few professions (Why those professions in particular?  From memory hundreds of professions were included in the survey) and paste their results on the actuary page.  At best it makes no sense, at worst it is an attempt to bias.  I advise you give up soon.  Posters like Avi have been working on this page for ages, I doubt they will allow your paragraph stay on this page and if an edit war begins, an administrator will interfere and only reach the same conclusion I have... that it is irrelevant and has no place in the article--Zoso Jade 17:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought about it last night and I was going to write something similar to what Zoso Jade wrote. That sentence has absolutely nothing to do with an article about actuaries. It may belong in an articles about Wall Street Journal surveys, surveys about careers, or flaws in survey methodology, but it doesn't belong here. Malik Shabazz 19:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Bookmakers have similar skills?
"Similar professionals who deal with financial risk and outcomes of events are bookmakers."

This sentence was inserted by anon editor. It seems to be factual having read both articles, but it was removed as violating policy. What policy? I can't see why it should not be in the article and will reinstate unless its' factual basis is shown to be incorrect. 194.46.247.122 00:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

-- This anon edit "Similar professionals who.. was expanded and placed in context, but the revision was removed. Can't see why. The detailing of 18th century mathematicians who studied gambling and its  modern spinoff in bookmakers seems apt, so why remove? We are not producing an advertising brochure, but are detailing the development from gambling studies to a modern acturarial discipline. Tayana 01:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The actuarial profession evolved from the study of human mortality and morbidity. While statistics as a whole does benefit greatly from the study of games of chance, actuaries in soecific do not, and the connection to bookmaking is tenuous and misleading. Any reference to bookmaking actually belongs, if at all, in the main statistics articles, not actuary. Thanks -- Avi 14:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Avraham introduced the word "statistics", which seems a total non-sequiter. The use of statistics is universal in most disciplines and is irrevelant to the current discussion. Here we are talking about chance outcomes; of life expectancy or winning an event. Bookmakers(directly) along with actuaries(or their employers) have a finincial interest in the outcome of chance events. Both are professiionals in their own analagous spheres. Both have mathematical underpinnings. Accordingly the comparison is relevant. Consequently the information about the study of games of chance leading on to actuarial development and the comparison with similar practitioners is appropriate for reinstatement. Tayana 15:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC).


 * I believe you are incorrect on any number of fronts.


 * 1) Bookmakers set odds for various outcomes of individual sporting events. No actuary would ever calculate ods for an individual death or car accident; that is inherently incalculable.
 * 2) Bookmakers do not use sophisticated mathematical models; rather they use an inherent understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of individual teams/competitors.
 * 3) Tailors are also professionals in their own sphere. So what?
 * 4) Waiters and waitresses also have a financial interest in the outcome of chance events (whether or not they will get tipped)
 * 5) Epidemiology and physics also have mathematical underpinnings.
 * The comparison is flawed on all levels. The closest thing one can say is "both use math to calculate future outcomes". So do accountants, census takers, research biochemists, and anyone who uses statistics. That is much too tenuous a connection and it in no way shape or form belongs in the article, let alone the lead. -- Avi 19:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You are moving this discussion toward the absurd by your reference to tailors and waiters!!. Again further non sequiters are irrelevant to your case. Reading your reply suggests contradictions as you state; "no actuary would ever calculate odds for an individual death" Does this mean that if I take out life assurance aged 30 or 50, that sombody has not determined that the 50 year old has the a greater risk of dying in the term of the cover than the 30 year old? Each policy is a risk individually ascertained and contradicts your assertion accordingly. Similarly the contract the bookmaker makes with his customer reflects the real world probability of a sporting outcome individually determined by the volume of wagers in a particular direction. How he achieves his determination whether by math or inherent judgement is irrelevant. I still condider that inclusion is warranted. Tayana 00:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That is correct. The cohort of people age 50 has greater mortality and morbidoty risk than does the cohort of those aged 30, and individual policies are sold based on the insured's assigned cohort (together with other correlated factors). No actuary will calculate the risk of any one person dying to price a policy. It is false to say that each risk is individually ascertained in life insurance. Rather, there are various factors whose value is calculated based on cohorts (age, smoking, obesity, gender, etc.) and the policy is usually a base plus multiplicative and additive charges applied due to membership in certain groups. Further, your response to waiters and chemists further underscores my point regarding bookmakers. It seems apparent that you are neither an actuary nor do you understand the field. Lastly, doctors also make decisons about the possibilty of future life and death based on inherent judgement. Are they actuaries? Of course not. You may wish to talk with one, such as myself, before adding irrelevant information. I'd suggest www.beanactuary.org. -- Avi 03:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If I may jump in (Avi, unless I misread what was said in other threads, you are an actuary. So am I -- FSA, 1997), bookmakers aren't really concerned with the strengths or weaknesses of the teams. What they're after is setting odds and spreads so that, whatever the outcome, they win. I read once about how it's done. Interesting stuff. Anyway, that said, it seems to me that the tone of "Similar people who..." is one of disparagement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * My problem with the anonymous editor and his/her comment about bookmakers is that he/she has an axe to grind and is trying to use this article to make a point. Here is one version of the sentence:


 * "They are similar to bookmakers, who punt the odds against the gullible public on sporting events for their financial benefit, similar to the cash grubbing activities of insurance companies, who speculate on life, death and other possibilities for the financial benefit for their shareholders."


 * The sentence has been inserted several times, with small variations, from various IP addresses that are all registered to Havelock House in Belfast, Ireland. It seems clear to me that this editor is a vandal, and is not seeking to improve the article. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 00:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Denmark
I found a couple of sources for the data and did some minor re-writing to have the section fit the sources. -- Avi 18:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Translate This Article!!
Some one (that knows and can) you would please translate this artcile into Spanish! Thanks!

Elizur Wright
A little research pulls up the 1905 book. I have updated the templates and references accordingly, and removed the extraneous infor about slide rules. That properly belongs in the Wright article itself. -- Avi 01:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)