Talk:Self-directed IRA

"Self-directed IRA" is not a proper name
The term "self-directed IRA" is not a proper name. There is no official IRA type by that name. IRS documents do not capitalize it just as they do not capitalize "traditional IRA". I will be changing the title and the typography of the article to reflect this. Joja lozzo  21:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

lozzo You are correct that "self directed IRA" is not an official term. It is not listed anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code. It is identical to an IRA. Since all IRAs are self directed, technically they are interchangeable terms. However the term is frequently used to describe a component of the financial services industry that deals with alternative investments inside IRAs or other types of retirement accounts. This is an important distinction which needs more clarity. There are many people who are taken advantage of due to their lack of knowledge in this area. I want to help clean up the source information that people get so they don't get dupped so easily by misrepresentation. The SEC fraud alert page says it all. I would be happy to work with you or any others who are interested in keeping this space and related spaces clean. In reading prior posts in the talk section, it appears as if there have been some issues with certain industry related parties. I'm a bit new to this process, but I'm happy to work together to make it a better page. Kirk Chisholm 01:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirkchisholm (talk • contribs)

Removal of corporate websites as sources
mean as custard, you have engaged in vandalism of the self-directed IRA page. This page is being policed by experts on this topic to prevent ref spam, you have not added anything to this page, other than remove helpful references. I am only one of many who have agreed to keep this page clear of spam. If your intent is to police ref spam, please describe how exactly you decided what is ref spam and what is not. Since you removed 27 references, I'm sure you have a very clear set of rules you follow. Preseumably you have also read each of these references to decide which is valid and which is not. I am eager to hear your explanation. In addition to this lack of thought on the part of mean as custard, he has even added a dead page. I would imagine this has a reason too. Please provide all your wisdom as to why you are vandalizing this page. thanks 66.30.62.79 (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Refspam refers to promotional links masquerading as references, designed to attract traffic to commercial websites. The references I removed were to commercial investment companies chiefly consisting of material written by senior partners of those companies, notably Adam Bergman, senior tax partner at the IRA Financial Group, and Bill Humphrey, Co-founder and CEO of New Direction IRA.


 * IRA Financial Group: "The Mission of IRA Financial Group is: to create exceptional value for our customers by harmoniously blending professionalism; quality and efficiency; to deliver highly customized client services at an affordable price; to adhere to the highest ethical standards; to exceed our clients’ expectations."
 * New Direction IRA: "New Direction IRA is a trusted provider of investor education as well as custodial and administrative services* for retirement accounts and HSAs. We enable individual investors to take control of their tax advantaged accounts using alternative asset opportunities that are ideally suited to each investor’s goals and investment style. Investors, advisors and asset providers choose New Direction IRA because of our depth of experience in asset acquisition, specialized education offerings and proven track record of reliable transaction funding and thorough asset documentation."
 * Mean as custard (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * IP, please review the definition of vandalism. Dead links are not automatically a problem, since sources need not be available online at all. VQuakr (talk) 04:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Just so that I am clear, mean as custard, you think it is ok to add dead links on Wiki and remove all links that are not government or academic? Isn't that extremely biased and closed minded to assume that only government or academic sites can provide references? I'm not saying all of the links you removed were valuable, but many of them are references to valuable content which is not available other places. There was no real thought put into these edits. You removed 27 links. Why not just delete the page, since you don't understand the topic. Better yet why don't you attack my other edits since you are attacking me personallly. Oops, you already did that. Please provide an explanation to each one you removed specifically. 66.30.62.79 (talk) 00:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I was the one who linked WP:DEADLINK, not Mean as custard. Yes, it is completely acceptable to add sources that are not available on the internet. Nothing in our policy on reliable sources requires sources to be online. Re "why not just delete the page", I do agree that it needs a complete rework by removing most of the content (reducing it to a stub) and starting over. Of the ~27 sources removed (most of which went back to the same two websites), which specific sources do you think should be retained? VQuakr (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Government and academic references are fine, but references to independent trade publications would be even better. If none can be found then this is a clear indication that the content is unnotable and should be removed. . . Mean as custard (talk) 06:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Gold IRA, Custodian bank
Most of the references in these articles similarly consist of promotional links to commercial websites. I plan to remove them. See WP:LINKSPAM. . . Mean as custard (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is no reason to be using corporate websites as sources when the same information should be available from govt and academic sources. VQuakr (talk) 06:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Perusing the article, I think this needs stubbification and a fundamental rewrite., what do you think? VQuakr (talk) 07:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)