Talk:World Financial Group

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the World Financial Group article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.





Contents

[edit] POV

Seems POV to me 66.41.59.162 03:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Seems POV, like an ad.
I rewrote the article later on 22 July using a variety of sources to replace the copyvio promotional cut and paste. Can we now take down the POV flag? —Theo (Talk) 10:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
WFG is clearly a scam and a fraud. This article is very POV and reads like a propoganda. If you don't believe WFG is a scam, then read ALL These SITES and if your not convinced, your either in denial or brainwashed...
If you'll read the NPOV page you linked (not a bad idea, since you're using the initialization incorrectly), you'll see that Wikipedia's NPOV policy is to write articles "presenting conflicting views without asserting them." There's really not much justification needed beyond that; Theo's present version of the page fits the bill. — Lomn | Talk 13:31:07, 2005-08-23 (UTC)

Sales is not for the weak minded flakes of the world. The only thing unsuccessful people are good at it pointing fingers. Maybe that's why they blame WFG.


*****Quit your whining, if you don't like sales, leave it alone. It's not anyone's fault you can't do it. Atleast you tried. ****** —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.120.60.249 (talk • contribs).

I have nominated this for POV as there seems to be a great deal of arguement over what is viewed as bias against WFG and the subsequent insertion of opposite POV for WFG. Arzel 00:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I had recently changed the introduction to the article specifically because it was very POV for WFG. It seems that fairly recently an edit was made that effectively cut and pasted from one of the WFG corporate web sites. The additional sections of the article still require further edits to make them unbiased.

On the issue of whether WFG is MLM: according to Georgia state law WFG's sales practices and commission structures fill ALL of the requirements to be classified as an MLM business. Georgia's legal MLM definition is mirrored almost verbatim in most states and Canada.

Traiven 04:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I have almost no interest in this topic, I stumbled across it recently and noticed a number of uncited claims (which I subsequently removed) which did seem very POV. It does appear that a number of pro-WFG people seem to continually remove anything which is remotely viewed negative and then add additional material which does seem to be corporate-speak. The real question is whether there will be actual discussion or rather simply a continuation of edit wars, but perhaps I can help offer a neutral point of view. Arzel 06:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Would an effective way of elliminating the edit wars be to have very specific proponent and opponent sections with a prefaced warning indicating that those sections may contain disputed 'facts'? That way the rest of the article could be kept to openly available, non-disputed facts. Unless of course it is a company employee who is changing the article, then the it might as well be protected.

Traiven 15:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Those responsible for the broad-spectrum POV edits, be they pro or con, consistently use one-time single purpose accounts (or edit anonymously) and show no interest in dialog. While I can't discuss whether or not employees are doing the editing, I'm quite confident that no headway can be made on convincing the involved parties to edit with discretion. — Lomn 19:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This page on Wikipedia does seem to draw some very passionate views. My aim at editing this site is to present a balanced view point that sites facts.

If you are going to state facts you need to supply the appropriate citation Arzel 02:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of edit wars that are occurring. It is very distressing to see persons continually add points of view that are not based in fact, but are compilations of opinions by view points on negative web sites.

I can understand your feelings, but the other opinions are based in citable facts. Arzel 02:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, Point of fact - World Financial Group is not a 'pyramid'. It is not a 'scam'. Continual references to that point are more then misleading. They are in fact not based in fact. MLMlaw.com site very clearly sites the law. World Financial Group by definition of law is not a pyramid scheme. References as such are libellous. Point of fact. Pyramids and like models are illegal. Pyramids pay for recruiting and they force payments for products and services not sold. Neither of those attributes in my research are attributable to World Financial Group.

I think you are under the impression that stated critisisms are stated as fact, when they are actually statements of fact that other people believe. It is not misleading to state that some people feel WFG is a pryamid, and there is indeed information on the internet to back up this feeling. The article in no way claims that WFG is a pyramid, but that some people feel that it is. The actual definition of a pyramid scheme is a different animal all together. The fact is that MLM are usually shaped like a pyramid, but this does not equate to them being defined as a pyramid scheme. Finally, wiki is not a place for personal research. Just because your personal research dictates that WFG is not a pyramid does not equate to it being fact, unless you have a citation to back up your claim. Arzel 02:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

In my research World Financial Group does have attributes attributable to MLM, and Agency model. Further, in my research, there are numerous companies that have similar models in many industries, and in fact in the Financial Services industry. (Primerica, is the largest)

Point of fact. World Financial Group does not have employees or ex-employees. WFG is an agency model.. They have agents. Referring to them otherwise is inaccurate and describes an employee/employer relationship that does not exist. It does seem like a trivial point, however relationships, salaries, and other characteristics of relationships are typically tied to such descriptions, and can thus be misleading. In accurate references as such, diminish the view point of the persons describing the issues relating to those relationships.

Whether or not WFG claims people to be agents or employees, doesn't negate the fact that some people apparently feel like they are employees. So to say that some people feel like they are employees is not disengenious or biased against WFG. Certainly some people are, but the article does not state this as fact. Arzel 02:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It is clear by the number of ‘anti-WFG’ sites that there are many upset individuals. In reading many of these sites, it is clear that many of them have a very strong view point. (One even makes reference to alien abductions). Analysis of these sites largely can be summed up as people that have been misled by individuals, and there are groups that do a lot of ‘marketing’ and ‘hype’, but little in the way of knowledge and help. It is understandable that people would be upset. Further research has also shown others expressing more thoughtful insight, describing opportunities that were not necessarily for them, but offered a balanced view point. Further research still shows others offering actual service, education, and value.

Again, wiki is not a place for personal research. If you wish to provide factual information it must include citable sources, of which you have not provided any. Arzel 02:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It would seem that World Financial Group is similar to Primerica in its model. As such is should likely be afforded similar description as Primerica on Wikipedia. The demonizing, and excessive marketing references regarding World Financial Group on Wikipedia should cease. The place for demonizing and marketing should be left to private web sites. 74.98.67.205 15:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that wiki is not a place to demonize, but purely a place to list encyclopedia information. Unfortunately, the information you leave reads as a pro-POV regarding WFG leaving out the real critisisms regarding WFG. Arzel 02:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

74.98.67.205 15:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


Note to Arzel. Thank you.Good points all regarding substantiation of claims. The point I would like to make is that for a level represnetation to be made the observations and allowed rules of statements must go both ways. Statements of ‘belief’ and ‘opinion’ do not belong in a factual encyclopedia.

To the point I am trying to make - By the same guidelines.

Reference to people calling WFG a scam or a pyramid do not belong in wikipedia.

Why Not? Arzel 15:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The fact that regulatory bodies recognize that it is not, strongly suggests that references as such do not belong. To state or opinion otherwise when  regulatory bodies disagree is inflammatory.
It is only inflammatory if the article is making a statement that WFG is a pryamid scam. Arzel 15:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Otherwise one can say every company that they ‘believe’ to be a scam can be stated as such on Wikipedia. (eg. There are many people unhappy with WalMart and other companies, but their ‘opinions’ do not exist or belong on wikipedia. Instead their criticism exist, but point to legitimate recognized bodies, and specific legal cases, NOT to unrecognized persons and bodies onto themselves who have no legitimacy outside of being disgruntled individuals or groups.)

Not true, there are several links to both Wal-Mart and McDonalds listing critisisms which are similar in nature to the rip-off report which you continue to remove. It is not for you to decide what information should exist on wikipedia, only that information provided is FACTUAL and UNBIASED. Just because you disagree with it (that some people claim WFG is a scam) doesn't change the fact that it is TRUE (that some people claim WFG is a scam). Arzel 15:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Reference to employee is factually incorrect. It is not a question of WFG claiming them to be agents. The contract that is signed by people involved with WFG is an agency contract not an employment contract. Your description of people ‘feeling like employees’ is an interesting observation, however that is not what was written on the site. The site stated ‘ex employees’. That is an incorrect statement of fact. I think we can agree this does not belong on Wikipedia.

I agree that associates are not technically employees and should probably be listed as ex-associates. Apparently these people felt like employees and after looking at the WFG site I can see how one might get the impression that they would be employees. Arzel 15:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Lastly, you statements regarding backed up and reference information that are credible sources is accurate and apply equally. I agree completely. Following the same unbiased statement. It follows that 1. Reference to ‘ex employees’ requires factual back up. It is not possible, since it incorrect. 2. Reference to anti-wfg sites that are opinion oriented and heavily slanted do not belong. If we disagree on this point, we need to effectively include ‘anti’ company sites to all wikipedia reference for companies that do have disgruntled persons formerly associated with them. (Walmart, McDonalds, American Airlines, etc etc.) It is not practical, not wise for wikipedia to move in that direction. Guildelines and standards need to be fair across the board.

Many well-known companies do have so-called "anti" company sites. Most of which are included here in Wikipedia. Wal-Mart has an entire article just for the critisim of Wal-Mart, so using this arguement is not going to help your cause. If anything, the rip-off report link on the WFG article is less biased than many of the links on the articles you mentioned simply because the rip-off report site is not limited to just WFG. Arzel 15:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Lastly, I wrote the pieces that also state what critics say about WFG, so I find it humorous that you feel that my view point is Pro WFG. My preference is for factual statement on this site.

It is obvious you are Pro-WFG as you have left in marginal claims of WFG being able to better serve the market based off its business model, without any factual evidence to back up this claim. Also on one of your previous edits you claimed that the WFG model was common to the industry, yet also left in the statement that it's uncommon model was what made it better able to serve than other models. I will rerwite part of the article later this weekend when I get a chance to make it more neutral.
As a side note, please include new responses after the table of contents, and register. No one like to discus with an anoynomous, you lose a lot of credibility without an account. Arzel 15:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Note to ARZEL. Appreciate your comments. I see many of your points,as I am glad you do see some of mine. It is regretable that you believe that I am removing large chunks of information. I have removed sections that say 'pyramid scheme' as it is inflammatory, unsubstantiated, and redundant. The 'linked sites' can make those claims, but stating such 'feelings, and impressions' do not belong on an 'factual' site. Stating MLM is sufficient, don't you think? . I have looked at Walmart sites and the like. The 'hyperbole' is left for the links. The statements that there are detractors, is stated on Wikipedia in a less passionate way. That would seem to me to be the most appropriate for an encyclopedia.

74.98.67.205 14:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC) Note to Arzel and other NPOV persons trying to make Wikipedia an excellent factual source of information,


I have taken your comments under serious advisement. I think we are on the same side.

Your goal, as is mine is a ‘neutral point of view’. In my previous efforts, a neutral point of view was to balance the negative with the positive. That resulted in a defamation and removal of the positive. I can understand if this is not the correct tactic. My mistake, if it was, was an honest mistake.

So instead of a pro/con listing That leaves the alternative which is a neutral POV

However, what seems to be lacking is the understanding that the postings that are referred to as credible, are not.. They are directly biased. Let me explain, and by doing so I hope that you may conclude the same – that by leaving only those this is not a neutral point of view.

Let me explain, as I make reference to the sites that come up most frequently in searches, and that I think you may be looking to as credible.

Cases in point

Ripoffreport.com and bad business.com Sites run by Ed Magedson. Currently he has five Federal lawsuits against him. Being sued, for extortion and cannot keep his legal counsel.

Please see - http://www.rip-off-bad-business.com/

The findings are corroborated by a news report and other findings.


Wfg-offline, and xwma – both created by Wally Tiu – Terminated by WFG. Not a NPOV or an unbiased source. Biased to the negative Point of View


www.armydiller.com – Site says specifically she hates all MLM and does not want to talk about it. Specifically states in communications that she only wants postings of lawsuits and complaints. It states specifically on her site that is all she wants to hear about. Admittedly Biased to the negative Point of View



Happy condo – Private domain. Located in Toronto. This person continues threads and blogs where he names himself McWFG_McWGS_MLM– and posts a picture of a Machiavellian clown. His discussions are caustic, smear oriented and often rhetorical. His recommended links are to Badbusinessbureau Ripoffreport Armydiller – see above to see why his POV is likely not grounded in neutrality.

Biased to the negative Point of View



Annsieg from Minnesota

She is selling a book about how to do better then MLM- $79.95 – READ SEVEN PAGES and then ORDER THE BOOK Not a NPOV

PROGRAMCRITIQUE.COM A front for a company that is selling something else. selling Multiple Paycheck Systems. Not a NPOV


THE INTERNET REPORTER – owner of the domain is shane woods. http://www.shanewoods.com/

It is a site that is selling something else. Shane woods is the  owner of this domain and he is selling the notion that he is 31 years old and has a get rich quick scheme. Not a NPOV.


Lastly related to regulatory bodies and disciplinary actions reported on the NASD web site.

WFG – 0 Please do a search of other large firms. Most have been fined and had disciplinary action taken against them. I searched the largest banks and dealers in Canada, and all had disciplinary action and fines against them My point is there must be a way to show a NPOV, by showing positive and negative, while not adding disputed sources, and not using emotional language and writing techniques that slant a view point.

I know you believe me to be Pro WFG. Even if that is the case, it does not make it correct to reject the reseach and the facts 'out of hand'. I want a fair resolution. I look forward to a resolution that we can both be a part of.


NOTE TO Anonymous 74.98.67.205. DO NOT remove discussion content, this is a form of vandilism. Why did you remove all statements regarding the MLM nature of WFG? As I stated earlier, personal research is not allowed on Wikipedia, and the information links you provided are not relevent to whether the information provided regarding WFG is true.

It appears you have a very upset person in one company insanely upset with anything negative regarding them on the internet and the rip-off report.

Note to Arzel - 5 lawsuits, a defendent that cannot be found, lawyers deciding not to represent, an independent news article (journalist require- or at least used to - require independent validation of information and sources) is not 1 lone person with a vandetta. Certainly 1 person made the site.I agree..but they did not invent the information. These lawsuits 'could be' 'fictious' but they are likely a bit more relevent then rants on sites created for the sole purpose of ranting. You have in a roundabout way, made my point. (what makes you think this one person that made the post is 'insane' but the others that have posted to other sites are 'not insane'?. Point is perhaps that since this cannot be determined, reference to both sides should be removed. Respectfully, I would like to know your thoughts as to what the right action should be.


The problem I have with you deleting the rip-off report is that you are using an unrelated incidence as criteria for dismissing everything else on that site. After doing a little of my own investigation, the case against rip-off report seems to be very weak, and is more a case of him not wanting to have to pay to defend himself against it. I am not trying to defend the rip-off report, if he does indeed extort as some would claim I certainly do not condone that kind of activity. That being said, there is a great deal of information on that site that is true, thus to disregard it completely because of unrelated mitigation, is not, IMO, warrented. Arzel 00:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


The information regarding the MLM aspect of WFG should be reincorporated back into the article. You try to skirt around the issue by calling it a hybrid but it is clear that WFG has many elements of the common MLM.

Note to Arzel - I did not make the change. I will put something in its place.

Finally, in the future, please add discussion talk within the appropriate sub-heading, and do not delete other peoples comments. Arzel 15:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Note to Arzel - I did not delete peoples comments. I am sorry that you think that I did.

You really need to create an account. These changes are all coming from the same IP, any reasonable person would make the assumption that they are the same person, or at least same persons, it is highly unlikely that two different people on the same IP address have such highly correlated opinions regarding the same topic if they are not the same person, or at least people closely related in some manner. Arzel 00:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

74.98.67.205 13:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)further note. I did more investigation. Someone on the same router made changes. I have instructed them to stop. Again, sorry.

Note to Arzel. - Regarding personal research posting.I make reference to those sites in this discussion session, NOT in the ARTICLE section. I am following the rules as you have explained them to me. I did so as a point of explaining. If I misunderstand, it is not for lack of trying to understand. I am sorry for any and all confusion. It is my intent to be clear and I am trying my best to ensure the communication is clear.

Sorry for the confusion, what I meant was that you were using personal research to justify the deltetion of a reference unrelated to the current topic. Arzel 00:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Lastly the point of the reference to the NASD site. NASD web site is not made up information by me, but I understand your point about 'personal research'. The only point I am trying to make, in a communication forum, and not in the article is that NASD is a regulatory body in the industry in question. Its JOB is to look for inpropriates. All other 'opinion' should be removed. Otherwise you might have an article that looks like that 'Big Daddy' article on wikipeida, that looks more like an advertisement. No one wants wikipedia to end up like that.

In reading your thoughts, and digesting what has transpired and the purpose of wikipeida, I respectfully submit that the sources used in keeping wikipedia NPOV be recognized regulatory bodies or bodies that are independent sources set up for the purpose. I recognize that the internet is an unregulated body of information. Lets try to keep wikipedia a source of clean reference and a good reputation.

thanks for your time and efforts in that regard. It is appreciated.(even if it may appear otherwise.).we have both taken cosiderable efforts to do what we believe is the 'right thing' and for that I have respect.

I understand your desire regarding this topic, however you do realize that many people have a very negative view of WFG, simply removing all reference to them will only result in future revisions including them back into the article, especially when some of the critisisms appear to have some validty and reference source. Arzel 00:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

74.98.67.205 13:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC) I agree. I did not remove the points in question for that very reason. It is my hope that a fair representation can be made, that does not penalize the people who are good business people, for the actions of those who are not, by those that are very angry. An article that is factual, that is not 'emotionally worded' nor 'manipulative' is the end goal that I think we are both aiming for. Warts and all are fine as long as there are balanced view points, leaving for the reader to decide, and not have their opinion 'formed' by the words of the site. A sincere thank you Arzel.

[edit] Scam

"World Financial Group (WFG), formerly known as World Marketing Alliance (WMA) is what is commonly known as a multi-level marketing company. " "World Financial Group's real objective is not about selling products and services as it may want us to believe. Instead the organization sells a dream to those seeking to better their lifestyles. Often the WFG's sales pitch will be about early retirement, 12% consistent rate of return on investment, guaranteed life insurance, the potential to earn six figure income, and all expense-paid trips to Hawaii. This dream unfortunately can be so enticing that subconsciously many will become brainwashed into believing that the mission of WFG and its money making strategies are easily attainable and without risks." Sources: http://www.wfg-offline.com/ http://www.wahm.com/boards/Forum59/HTML/000169.html

While I appreciate you finding sources, I hope you understand that a POV advocacy group and a web forum aren't really up to caliber. That's equivalent to sourcing MoveOn.org for an evaluation of Bush's presidency. — Lomn | Talk 07:54:01, 2005-08-19 (UTC)
Additionally, WP cannot accept cut-and-paste contributions from copyrighted sources. — Lomn | Talk 07:54:54, 2005-08-19 (UTC)
You ARE NOT allowed to use the bathrooms. If you do you are ridiculed. If your guests leave before a BPM is finished you will be DRAGGED out of the BPM room to chase down your guest(s) who have probably figured out WFG is really a SCAM! from http://www.wahm.com/boards/Forum59/HTML/000169.html
The Recruiting Process from http://www.wfg-offline.com/recruiting.htm
Also this: http://www.wfg-offline.com/pages/test/2.htm
Also if its not a scam then why do they force you to pay $125 ? There is a CAD$125 ($100 in the US) fee for joining World Financial Group as an associate. The company claims this fee is the cost to perform a background check.
You will also have to obtain a license depending on the products you wish to sell. For example, you may elect to sell life insurance products and thus would require a license. The online internet course for an insurance license costs CAD$275 plus another CAD$75 to write the exam. There is an in-class course which you may opt to take for an additional fee. Most WFG associates only have an insurance license because apparently this is the most lucrative business to make large commission. Other licenses you can take are in securities, and mortgages. The associate is fully responsible for financing all the educational and licensing expenses, and WFG does not offer any reimbursement whether you pass or not.
There are many other costs you will be subject to once you have joined WFG. Company brochures and other marketing materials, which could be useful to show and provide to your clients, will have to be purchased from the company. Other expenses may include training, and special events organized by WFG. from http://www.wfg-offline.com/
And heres another source that points to how WFG is a scam: http://www.wfg-offline.com/faq.htm
Pure volume of bad sources doesn't change the fact that they are bad sources. "wfg-offline" is no more valid a source than "american-cars-suck" would be for General Motors. Similarly, a web forum post from someone with no verifyable credentials is inappropriate. Find, say, a Washington Post piece on the company and you've got something to work with. — Lomn | Talk 00:25:57, 2005-08-20 (UTC)
Could you cite your sources that WFG is legit then? If you have none, then you've probably joined WFG and brainwashed or refuse to accept the truth. WFG is clearly a scam and a fraud. This article is very POV and reads like a propoganda. If you don't believe WFG is a scam, then read ALL These SITES and if your not convinced, your either in denial or brainwashed...
As below, no. I have no sources to cite because I'm not defending a POV nor am I making substantial additions to the article. Honestly, I have no knowledge of WFG's business; however, I can very easily recognize what is objective NPOV and suitable for an encyclopedia and what is not.
For instance, the MLM assertion is easily made. The frequent link between MLM and pyramid schemes is easily made. The link between pyramid schemes and Nazism is... not. So no, no brainwashing here. My AFDB is in good shape -- from both sides. — Lomn | Talk 13:17:44, 2005-08-23 (UTC)
A thought: your content might have more traction in an article directly on pyramid schemes / fraud or the like. No one disputes that pyramid schemes don't exist, so the line for NPOV is in a different place. However, writing that article and pointing here as a case-in-point will be no better received than adding the content here directly. Finally, you might also consider signing up an account -- if nothing else, it'll hide your IP address in the edit histories. — Lomn | Talk 13:22:01, 2005-08-23 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation of changes

Please stop simply reverting to a version that erases the inline source citations. The various elements that I have just removed have the following problems:

  1. Although many people agree that WFG's business is fraudulent, to assert that as a fact is a libel until it is demonstrated in a court of law.
  2. Although WFG shares some characteristics with a cult, it does not have sufficient to merit the description "cult-like" (consider the cult checklist compiled by Michael D. Langone, Ph.D [1]).
  3. "claiming to market" can be read to mean that the company does not actually market its products; this is demonstrably misleading given the level of complaint from people who have bought the products.
  4. "supposedly claimed" is argumentative and challenges the ability of the article's author (in that part: me). The network size is asserted by the owners of the business in the cited source, which is deleted in 'your' version.
  5. There is no reason to doubt that WFG is not registered with WGS. NASD would shut WFG in a heartbeat were it falsely claiming registration with broker. Furthermore, why would would anyone fail to register with a co-owned broker? It is my understanding that the business tends to misrepresentation rather than stupidity.
  6. "supposedly an agent of AEGON" is unnecessary qualification when AEGEON itself claims the company as its agent.
  7. There is no evidence that WFG was formerly known as World Lending Group. WLG is the business that Humphrey founded after he sold WFG to AEGON.
  8. "Claimed its founding" is another unecessary qualification. The combined effect of all these qualifications is to suggest that everything that WFG says is a lie. Such absurd overstatement plays into the hands of WFG apologists because they can argue that the article is unreasonable.
  9. Hubert Humphrey did not die in 1978. I think you may be confusing him with a politician of the same name.
  10. Financial planner is not a euphemism for pyramid seller. It is a recognised term/euphemism for sellers that is common throughout the financial services sector.
  11. Tactics employed by World Financial Group include brainwashing, cult-like, blasting pop music and parading people around on stage at phony "business meetings", much reminiscent of Hitler¹s Nuremberg Rally. False claims of "dream selling" and "financial independent" missions are also employed at meetings and WFG will hires anyone from any background but they have to pay $100 for a supposedly "background check" and sign a contract. Agents don't have any idea on what they're selling and they are told to goto a convention to see the "vision" which cost additional money. There are plenty of signs that pointed to their materialism, greed, dishonesty, selfishness in each World Financial Group cultlike meeting. may contain some facts but is couched in such emotionally charged phrasing that it is unencyclopedic. Each of these assertions must be backed up with a reputable source that is likely to have checked the information and faces material loss if held liable for error.
  12. The three additional external links are inappropriate because they are open forums.
  13. The deletion of properly cited sources is discourteous at best. The references cited in their place are more open forums and do not immediately support anything asserted in the article.
  14. Categorising the article as "Fraud" is tantamount to libel, which I covered before.

We don not need to "cite […] sources that WFG is legit" because the article makes no claim that "WFG is legit". Your suggestion that editors who seek a NPOV form in good faith does not mean that they have "probably joined WFG and brainwashed or refuse to accept the truth." In my opinion, this article is not "very POV and reads like a propoganda". It is unemotional and factual as an encyclopedic article should be. It cites its sources. The author's belief about the legitimacy or otherwise of WFG should not be apparent in the article. To suggest that other editors are "either in denial or brainwashed" because they do not share your style and because you believe them to hold a point of view other than yours is a form of personal attack. Please try to be more civil in your future contributions. You clearly have extensive knowledge of WFG so you can make useful additions to this article and those related to it if you can moderate your emotion and use an encyclopedic style. —Theo (Talk) 12:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so why do people keep deleting changes to make this article objective? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.181.30.215 (talk • contribs) .

Removing the entire article and replacing it with something entirely different that is completely one sided is hardly a good faith attempt at making the article objective. Deli nk 01:30, 23 January 2006

What you keep reverting this to is not objective and is also slander as it contains unproven allegations as fact (you cannot prove why Humphrey sold it). I tried to write a more objective one but you killed it so I put the more biased one back. Can't we compromise on neutral language? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.181.30.215 (talk • contribs) .

The article does not say why the sale was made. It asserts that the sale was made following a nationally published mainstream magazine article painting the company in a negative light. "Compromise on neutral language" is what we've tried to do here -- both positions are summarized and neither is espoused or denigrated beyond noting that, as yet, the various criticisms and allegations have not led to meaningful legal action. — Lomn Talk 18:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
For example, editors have frequently removed the sentence beginning "It is particularly criticized for..." under the guise of "compromise" or "balance", and such action is entirely inappropriate. The company is criticized as noted, and a citation is provided. No assertion of the criticism's validity is made. Thus, the statement is neutral and appropriate. — Lomn Talk 18:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

***** Bottom line....Sales is not for everyone. WFG has good products that are being presented to it's market in a very unique-genious way. If you don't like it don't buy it...any of it. But only immature people point fingers. ****** —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.120.60.249 (talk • contribs).

Exactly why is it necessary to allow bashing of a company in Wikipedia in order for it to be considered a neutral article? I have researched World Financial Group and Aegon and disagree that there is anything fraudulent about either company. I consider it offensive that, just because a few people hate a company, they are allowed to falsely categorize a company as fraudulent or as a "pyramid scheme" on Wikipedia. To do that is unprofessional, at the very least, and causes me to lose respect for Wikipedia as a reliable source of information about companies in general. There are sources like the Better Business Bureau available to research and find if there are problems with a company. Personally, there is one company out there that I hate with a passion, yet I would not consider it to be fair if I logged on Wikipedia and bashed that company based on my personal experience. Please remove all the negative bashing of legitimate companies from Wikipedia!

[edit] External references

Please Note that www.wfg-offline.com is a site of opinions towards World Financial Group. The company is currently in very good standing. (comment moved from the article to the discussion page) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.27.192.5 (talk • contribs) .

The external links critical of WFG are noted as such. I don't think they are out of place in this article. Edgar181 18:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect data

1. The article states "World Financial Group (WFG), formerly World Marketing Alliance (WMA)". This is not politically correct. When a company A acquires company B, you never refer to company A as formerly company B. For example, when Chase Bank acquires Bank One, you don't refer to Chase Bank as formerly being Bank One. Chase Bank is Chase Bank. Bank One no longer exist. In the same sense, WMA no longer exist. World Financial Group is World Financial Group. WMA was acquired by AEGON.

2. In addition to offering variable life insurance, variable annuities and mutual funds, WFG also offers term life, whole life, universal life, and variable universal life, equity index universal life, fixed annuities, equity index annuities, 529 plans, Coverdell Education Savings Accounts, Custodial accounts like Uniform Gift to Minors Act (UGMA) accounts or Uniform Transfer to Minors Act (UTMA) accounts, and many other retirement solutions and business solutions.

3. WFG does not "co-owned" World Group Securities, they are affiliated companies.

4. WFG is not "an agency of" AEGON, WFG is a Member of the AEGON Group.

5. WFG does not put "emphasis on recruitment at the expense of training". WFG emphasizes recruiting as an effort to expand and grow their operation.

6. WFG does not have "lower returns on its policies than are normal for comparable products." WFG is a marketing agency which sells those same "comparable products." WFG pointedly does not have any products of its own. 207.10.189.13 18:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.11.247.132 (talk • contribs) .

While I'm certainly not qualified to weigh in on all of these points, several things strike me regarding this list. Some of these are factual, objective issues that can be verified and cleared up (#2-4, though listing every possibility for #2 would be going over the top). For #1, history is generally important to encyclopedia articles (this isn't a shareholder statement or company publication), so I don't see an issue here. So, to this point, these are changes that can be discussed and made with minimal contention.
#s 5 and 6 are the issues that cause reverts. #5 is a misrepresentation: the article does not claim that WFG emphasizes recruitment, etc. The article notes that critics claim WFG emphasizes, etc. This is an important distinction. The claim is sourced and objectively presented without attempting to say whether the claim is correct. However, perhaps the counter you note should be added for balance; I would find this in line with keeping a neutral point of view. For #6, I just don't understand your point. Other companies sell similar products, so the statement can't simply be written off (it is, of course, open to verification). — Lomn Talk 17:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This keeps getting reposted even though it only contains rumors, does nothing to explain the company, is poorly written and poorly cited. Regardless of whether you are a critic or support WFG this article does nothing other than say it may be certain things. Why do we keep having to revert to this? Can't we have some actual information on both sides included and maybe just maybe some cites??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gelfling (talk • contribs) .

As for this statement, I would give it consideration except that it comes from a user with minimal history who has removed citations from the article under the guise of "reverting vandalism" ( [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]) as well as leaving {{blatantvandal-n}} on the user page of the user who reverted said removals ([7]). — Lomn Talk 17:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Attacking me does nothing to improve this article. I removed some of the libel from the article and also attempted to make changes, which were immediately reverted. As pointed out below, this article has major problems with it. Rather than waste your time discussing me I suggest you spend it on making the article better--Gelfling.

[edit] WFG not unlike any other MLM

As long as MLM companies have existed, there has always been some sort of issues with how they handle things internally, aswell as how they handle dealing with the public. I've spent a well over ten years dealing with several different companies, including Amway, Quixtar, Equinox, Cognigen, ACN, and within the last few years, World Financial Group. No, I haven't been a part of all of these companies, I think two, maybe three to be honest, but I have spent alot of time on the outside looking in. Here is my take on what the issues really boil down to. First and foremost, it's the people you deal with. Quixtars biggest issue involves and outside of the company "Tools" (Support material and seminars) business. These money from this "Outside" business is not controlled by Quixtar in any way. The people in control of the "tools" are free to do what they want with this business. You do get the good with the bad. In many cases, there is much more bad than there is good, but that really boils down to the people you end up dealing with. Crooks are all over, especially in the Quixtar business. But that doesn't means everyone in Quixtar is a crook. My most recent involvement with Quixtar that lasted until 2004, I actually searched out who I wanted as my sponsor. It ended up very good. I can honestly say from the relationship we had, and my "Inside info" that I got from this guy, that he wasn't one of the crooks. I'm not going to say his name (I'm not trying to advertise for this guy, I'm just trying to make a point based on my experiences), I will however say he is a Diamond distributer, and has much control over his form of the "Tools" business. He ran things with the "tools" business in a very fair way, unlike many of the other people in control of any "Tools" business. There was no strong arming, or talk of "If you want to succeed, then you will buy this". Instead, If he thought you should hear something on a CD, he'd loan it to you for a week. If it helped, great, if it didn't, great. IF you wanted to buy it, cool. If not, cool. After spending 3 years in Quixtar/Amway previously, this was a huge change. The group in the past did basically force feed a direct connection of "your success is linked to how many tapes you buy". Well, as for that tactic I can say this. The group I was a part of years ago is all but gone now. They are dealing with many lawsuits, and many issues. The group I was most recently dealing with, was also around the years before, and they still are now. No lawsuits, no issues. Just basically running a business "Selling soap" and other various items. Two different groups, dealing with the exact same business. What is the difference? The people involved are the difference. You will run into this in any sort of MLM or network marketing business. It does not make the business bad, it does however make the people involved bad. People can easily avoid any sort of issues by simply doing what they are told. Time and time again it is preached by the people who are trying to bring you in, that it is a "huge business", a "Multi-Million dollar business" or various other statements meaning the same thing. Since that is the case, why not take the time to research it, just as you would if you opened your own business franchise such as "McDonald's" or a "BP Gas station"? People often don't read all they have handed to them, and then cry foul later. Please don't put yourself in that boat to begin with. When the information is handed to you, please read up BEFORE you sign up. It will save you time, money, and stress. This does really apply to all MLM type businesses, including World Financial Group. Be aware of who and what you are getting involved with. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.143.136.44 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Problem with Article

The following was emailed to <helpdesk-l@wikimedia.org> Fatal problem with article: World Financial Group I understand there are many people trying to obtain information about World Financial Group (WFG) and the article about this company on wikipedia.org is not providing an accurate description of this company. Unfortunately, the article has been protected, so no changes can be made. However, it seems that even when changes are made to this article, the changes are never permanent and are removed even when it is accurate. There's several things I want to point out: 1. The image used is for World Group Securities, a separate but affiliated company. WFG logo can be found on their corporate website at www.WorldFinancialGroup.com. There should be a separate entry for World Group Securities and their logo accordingly. 2. World Lending Group (WLG) is not co-own nor affiliated to WFG. WLG is not even a registered broker dealer. Please check it under www.NASDR.com (National Association of Securities Dealers website). In fact, WLG by corporate contract cannot be in the securities business. WLG is a completely different company. 3. WFG is affiliated with World Group Securities (WGS), a registered broker dealer. You can find this information on their corporate website at www.WorldFinancialGroup.com. WFG does not own nor co-own WGS either. AEGON is the parent company of both WFG and WGS. 4. WFG offers more than "variable life insurance, variable annuities and mutual funds". This is an incomplete list of products offers by the firm. 5. The wording is confusing for the reader: "Formerly known as World Marketing Alliance (WMA), the company was founded in 1991 by Hubert Humphrey, who subsequently founded World Lending Group. Humphrey sold the company to AEGON in 2001." Which company was founded by Hubert Humphrey? Is it WMA or WFG. Which company is sold to AEGON? Is it WMA, WFG, or World Lending Group? I hate to see Wikipedia getting sued for misrepresentation by a $320 Billion company. This email has also been posted on the discussion page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.11.247.132 (talk • contribs) .

There is also no proof as to why Humphrey sold WFG. Why does this libel have to continue to be added? If this is a true comment then it needs to be far better cited. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gelfling (talk • contribs) .

I'll quote from above:
The article does not say why the sale was made. It asserts that the sale was made following a nationally published mainstream magazine article painting the company in a negative light. "Compromise on neutral language" is what we've tried to do here -- both positions are summarized and neither is espoused or denigrated beyond noting that, as yet, the various criticisms and allegations have not led to meaningful legal action.
If there's legitimate libel, then please point it out specifically. Alternately, if you have a better means of citing the Money article, then by all means implement it. — Lomn Talk 18:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

How about the changes made? This makes it clear that the reason for selling was not necessarily the Money Magazine article but it does but the events in sequence. I cleaned up the NASD fine reduction addition and made it a little more neutral. However, is there any cite that shows there has been a reduction in fines?

[edit] MLM yes/no

I recently made a manual reversion of edits asserting that WFG is not MLM [8]. I did this because (1) we have sources in the article to the effect that WFG is MLM and (2) both old and new descriptions of WFG fit the general style of MLM outlined at multi-level marketing. I noted these concerns with the editor in question ([9], [10]) and, after several days without response, proceeded with the edit. Of course, it can be hard to cross paths with an IP-based editor, so I'm noting this bit here as well.

I am by no means an expert on WFG, MLM, or much else in this article. I'm merely trying to balance all the POV-pushing that this article seems to attract. To that end, if we can provide well-sourced evidence that WFG is not MLM, I'm all in favor of moving the article in that direction: certainly the existing sources have a high degree of bias to them; its just that the fundamental assertions seem to match up pretty well. — Lomn Talk 19:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

According to the definition put forth on Wikipedia's page on MLM's, WFG clearly is one. It is also important to note that it is equally clear that WFG is one of the completely legal forms of MLM -- there is no product required for purchase by a new agent and no charge to the agent for failure to sell products. additionally, no agent receives any compensation for simply bringing someone new into the company. There are also, however things about WFG (as can be found in their agent field manuals, which separate WFG from other MLM's: for example, hierarchies are not fixed -- i.e. someone brought on as a recruit can easily surpass the agent(s) who brought them into the company (their "upline") further showing that WFG is not a ponzi or pyramid scheme. Compensation, contract level, and position within the company are based solely upon personal performance.

The corporate and compensation structure in a WFG office is almost exactly identical to that of a real estate brokerage.207.10.189.13 18:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third external link contains libel

This article contains the line: 'Because multi-level marketing has a bad reputation arising from its confusion with illegal pyramid schemes' Unfortunately, this article is helping to add to that confusion. By that line it would appear that the article is indicating that WFG is not a pyramid scheme. However, the external link: Rip-Off Report forum on WMA/WFG indicates, wrongly, that WFG is a pyramid scheme.(Point #4 on the page that is linked to).

This article, while having a reference to a website with obvious libel against WFG, is one that helps to discredit Wikipedia a base of encyclopedic knowledge.

I suggest that that external link be removed. - Veers

Per our policy on maintaining a neutral point of view, we seek to write articles that present all relevant viewpoints fairly without being unfairly sympathetic to any. There is a reasonably large segment of the population purporting that WFG is a fraud, so it is appropriate for us to include that viewpoint. However, since no court has demonstrated that WFG is a fraud, it is also appropriate for us to treat it as a legitimate company.
As for the external sources being biased -- that's the nature of partisan sources. We believe that valuable information can be gleaned from a biased source without accepting all information so presented. As a quick example, consider Microsoft, another controversial company. Our external links include MS's own webpage, obviously partisan in favor, and a site called "Microsoft Versus", obviously partisan opposed. — Lomn Talk 17:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self-Promotion

This article seems to have quite a bit of self-promotion. The first line states they are one of the fastest growing financial services distribution and marketing organization in North America, yet there is no reference indicating this in the article. The Industry Outlook section seems only to provide validation for use of WFG. Every single line makes statements relating to some statistic, study, or forecast without any verifiable reference. The first section should be rewritten and the Industry Outlook section completely removed. Arzel 05:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Due to lack of comment I have removed the uncited POV comments which were decidely in favor of WFG and could be viewed as promotional material for WFG. Further discussion is desired. Arzel 05:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal experiences

Personal experiences irrelevant to the article have been removed per WP:TALK — Lomn 21:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World Financial Group

If WFG is a scam, then i guess you could say Wikipedia, and Investment Executive are scams also, as Wikipedia has nothing bad to say, and Investment Executive gives WFG a #1 rating over all, including ethics. It's sad to hear that all the haters will miss out, and even more waste their breath on something they have no idea about. 
 If i can help the 91% of Canadians that will retire broke, and the 7 millions Canadians that have no life insurance (stats Canada), by sitting down with them for free and just offering them a choice to change what there doing by replacing it with something better, and by being an independent broker, having no bias, using the best products on the market (AFG, CIBC, Transamerica, Equitable life, Franklin Templeton) to serve them, and also if i can show people an amazing business opporunity that can change there life forever, as it has mine, i'm sure as hell going to do it. It's now a responsibility.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/o/r/Talk%7EWorld_Financial_Group_b359.html"