Talk:World Financial Group

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the World Financial Group article.
Article policies

Old talk page archives remain available

Contents

[edit] Redesign of an old system

It should be noted that WFG is simply creating compensation links in the traditional agency system where there previously were none. The industry as a whole requires that agents be full time, although history shows that it was built originally by part-timers, a concept that WFG embraces today for the purpose of leaving a stable source of income in place for people to see if this career is for them, without causing hardship to the family. An industry agent must start as a salesman, there is no clearcut career path. Many years later an industry agent may want to start their own agency, in which they will need to leave their current one. It is likely they will recruit new agents and they will recieve a commission override on them, the more agents they hire the more money they make. It is the same system used in realestate, and mortgages, and has been around for hundreds of years. And, here the cycle repeats, and agents over time will leave to start their own agency, a system where agencies train their own competition (people who hire people, who hire people, who hire people). The problem is that, it is so slow, WFG just accelerated the process and has put a system in place where the new agent doesn't have to wait many years for an opportunity to own an agency. Since licensing is not required for the agency building portion of the business, a new recruit may start immediatly building his or her agency (it needs to be noted that all compensation on insurance and secuities products and services require appropriate licensing). Unlike the industry agencies that train their competition WFG agencies are encouraged to create additional agencies, to which a system is in place to support as large of a chain of agencies as can be built. It should also be noted that all distibution channels, including Walmart, are tiered in cost, and compenstion. Also, what happens on a personal level with other people at a company is not necessarily reflective of company policy or correct system execution. 70.56.50.123 17:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes reverted

Drewbull reverted changes I made to clarify criticisms and make minor adjustments toward NPOV, as well as fix some typographical errors. Since Drewbull gave no explanation, I reverted it back. Honestshrubber 01:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This is continuing to happen. There is now a second user undoing my edits, still with no explanation and no discussion. Honestshrubber 08:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This time Ashboarder has left a comment: "WMA is a company that no longer exists and any articles critical of that company does not reflect on World Financial Group which is a member of the respected AEGON Group." As WFG was formed from WMA, I believe that WMA's record is indeed pertinent, and WMA is mentioned more than once elsewhere in the article. Indeed, World Marketing Alliance now redirects to this article. An earlier part of the article suggests that WFG may have improved significantly since its acquisition by AEGON, and I feel that this is as far as we can go; it is not the place of Wikipedia editors to judge the connections between WMA's actions and those of WFG, but simply to present the facts that pertain to each.

If anyone cares to debate this issue, please do it here instead of repeatedly undoing my changes. Honestshrubber 06:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

AEGON purchased CERTAIN assets of WMA as is actually stated earlier in the wikipedia article. WMA no longer exists. Therefore I disagree that any article about WMA reflects in any way on the company called World Financial Group. Major companies are bought and merged into other corporations all the time. It is improper to link to an article about the previous company in an attempt to discredit the surviving company. That is especially true when that article only applies to the previous company.
Also, it is a total false allegation that World Financial Group makes any income claims for agents. The World Financial Group website clearly states the following: "Many people have experienced various levels of success with World Financial Group. However, individual member experiences may vary. This statement is not intended to nor does it represent that any current member’s individual results are representative of what all participants achieve when following the World Financial Group system." I don't know what Honestshrubber has against World Financial Group, but his or her attempt to falsely discredit the company should not remain in the article. Ashboarder 00:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Ashboarder
Thanks, Ashboarder, for responding on the discussion page. I'm glad we can have a civil discussion instead of just undoing each other's edits.
First, I'd like to address Ashboarder's claims. The first claim Ashboarder makes is that articles about WMA have nothing to do with WFG. I don't see how this is true, and apparently neither do other Wikipedia editors, as there are several references to WMA already in the article, including links to references that refer only to WMA. And as I mentioned, World Marketing Alliance redirects to the WFG article, which clearly implies that the companies are connected. The fact that "Major companies are bought and merged into other corporations all the time" does not suggest that the practices of the companies which are purchased have nothing to do with the practices of the companies they become post-purchase.
To address Ashboarder's second comment, I would like to include the paragraph I added, which keeps getting undone:

Criticisms are focused on several issues, often including those commonly raised with other businesses based on multi-level marketing, such as recruiters who exaggerate the likelihood of profiting significantly from participation in the business, over-aggressive members (brokers in WFG's case), and brokers who are not paid what they think they have earned. Before being purchased by Aegon, WMA faced at least $3.5 million dollars in fines and payments, or restitution of losses by investors, imposed by regulators; furthermore, multiple claims were made against WMA by former brokers.[1]

Now there is nothing in this paragraph that is disproved or even disputed by the disclaimer on WFG's website that Ashboarder quotes. The paragraph simply says that some recruiter are accused of exaggeration, and makes no attempt to generalize this to the company as a whole.
I would also like to take this opportunity to show the paragraph that was in place before my edit:

Criticisms are focused on several issues, including specific agents that aggressively misuse the model. In particular, critics site an over emphasis in their personal experience on recruitment by particular agents and groups. Critics suggest the industry and marketplace are well served by existing business models.

As most readers can probably guess, the reason I replaced this paragraph is that it is essentially free of specific information regarding criticisms of WFG. It further implies that any such criticisms are based on isolated personal experience, rogue agents, or a failure to understand WFG's business model. While this may be true, it is not the place of Wikipedia editors to judge the validity of complaints against WFG, and it is especially against the spirit of Wikipedia to omit the specific nature of the complaints in favor of generalities. Thus I felt that this paragraph did a disservice to Wikipedia readers, and was more informative after my edit.
I am therefore restoring the page to what it was before my changes were undone. I do not feel that my comments reflect a bias, but I am open to this paragraph being rewritten, so long as it informs readers of the criticisms directed toward WFG. However, I do not appreciate my changes being simply undone because someone does not like what I wrote. My contribution is certainly not vandalism, so I believe that the guidelines given in WP:UNDO clearly say that undoing is not the appropriate action to take.
Honestshrubber 02:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I should also point out that this dispute has escalated to the point where violations of the Wikipedia:Three Revert Rule are imminent, so I urge Ashboarder and anyone else who disagrees with my changes to raise the level of discourse here, and stop undoing.
Honestshrubber 02:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
No Honestshrubber, you are showing bias in your edit which offers no proof, from a reliable source, of your claim that WORLD FINANCIAL GROUP recruiters "exaggerate the likelihood of profiting significantly from participation in the business". Therefore your edit is NOT from a neutral point of view (NPOV). The article clearly states that AEGON purchased chosen assets, NOT the entire WMA company which ceased to exist. World Financial Group is NOT WMA. Therefore it is not acceptable that you insist on adding a link to an article about WMA from March 5, 2001. World Financial Group was formed as a company after that date. Your edit is simply a false allegation and is not NPOV. Ashboarder 06:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Ashboarder
On second thought, I think you are right that the sentence you removed was not substantiated enough to warrant inclusion. I confess that I may have put too much weight on some second- and third-hand accounts from insufficiently reliable sources. I also think that you were correct to move the remaining sentence to the earlier part of the article. So I think that the article as it stands at this moment is the best it's been since I first decided to edit it, and I consider this dispute resolved. Honestshrubber 07:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad there could be a resolution. Best wishes Honestshrubber. Ashboarder 05:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Ashboarder


[edit] Pyramid Scheme

It seems to me that this article isn't reflective of what the organization actually is. NPOV is not the same as no criticism. The fact that this article does not even mention the phrase "pyramid scam" (or at the very least, a link to the Multi-Level Marketing article in the first paragraph) seems a clear indication that it has been scrubbed by interested parties, i.e. has a point of view. The company is a frequent target of complaints and often reported to consumer protection websites. If nothing else, the overwhelming abundance of these accusations are worth a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewwithanm (talk • contribs) 20:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of the company being a pyramid scheme are false. WFG is owned by Aegon which is one of the world's largest financial and insurance related corporations. Aegon has also been listed as one of the most respected companies in the world. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), (formerly the NASD) has regulatory oversight over the securities division of WFG and would not allow a pyramid scheme or scam to continue operating if that were the case. The facts speak for themselves. Your allegations are only your opinion. The so called consumer protection websites I believe you might be referring to are simply one-sided biased rant and rave websites that do not offer any verifible facts or allow companies to defend themselves. If you start typing in major company names, you find that practically every company have scam allegations posted against them. Therefore, according to your logic, every major corporation in the world is a scam as long as a few people get mad and call it a scam. By the way, every company in the world is a pyramid according to Donald Trump. FYI, I'd suggest consumers check out any company through the Better Business Bureau prior to doing business with them. Drewbull (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)drewbull

While opinions regarding WFG being a pyramid scheme or not is simply a matter of semantics, the fact remains that WFG DOES utilize MLM tactics, which themselves are publicly synonymous with the word "pyramid scheme". And while Matthewwithanm's opinion certainly is his(?) own, they are also the opinions of a fairly large number of individuals. As knowledge is cumulative and based on consensus, disincluding such opinions, which are quite common (do a google search, almost every discussion board or forum focused upon WFG has such opinions) from an article on WFG, is a misrepresentation of public opinion. Caraski (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no proof that the alleged opinions Caraski mentions are "the opinions of a fairly large number of individuals". Any statements made in internet discussion boards and forums do not represent a NPOV and can not be verified as fact. There is no way to know if the people posting the slanderous statements against WFG, or any other company, are not posted by competitors or other persons with a vested interest in damaging the reputation of WFG. The possibility even exists that there are only a few people posting all of the slanderous statements found in a Google search. The truth is WFG is an AEGON company. AEGON is one of the largest and most reputable companies in the world. I do not know the exact source at this time but AEGON has been listed as one of the most admired corporations in the world, just as Drewbull mentions above. Have a wonderful day. Ashboarder (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Ashboarder

It's worth pointing out, just so it's here and clearly stated, that the truth, in whatever form it takes, is not suitable for the article unless it's verifiable. — Lomn 04:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Ashboarder mentions that "any statements made in internet discussion boards and forums do not represent a NPOV and can not be verified as fact", he also alludes to the fact that such are 'slanderous', and may be posted by 'competitors or other person's with a vested interest in damaging the reputation of WFG'. While this is a distinct possibility, a verifiable NPOV statement, would be that 'there is a verifiable amount of public discourse surrounding the possibility that there may be some aspects of WFG business practices that are of questionable ethicality, and this possibility is the subject of verifiable public debate'. This makes no statement as to the content of the various claims levelled against WFG, it merely mentions that such claims exist and are accessible and prevalently available publicly. A further point to this end would be that, if such in fact constitutes slander, I would invite ashboarder, or any other individual to point to any lawsuits launched by WFG charging slander or libel. Certainly it is in WFGs best interest to protect its own name and business interests, therefore if there is a case for slander, one should be able to pursue that avenue.Caraski (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
No. Message boards are not reliable sources. If you can't cite allegations per Wikipedia guidelines, don't bother inserting the claims to the article. Don't even bother bickering about them on the talk page. — Lomn 01:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, The revised edit should conform to reliable source guidelines, and does not contain any unverifiable sources.Caraski (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I will bicker about this...I'm a she not a he Caraski. Have a sunshine filled day. AshboarderAshboarder (talk) 07:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Haha! My apologies! Caraski (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand why the recent edit regarding the legal classification of WFG as a multi-level-marketing-plan of business was removed. Its somewhat akin to posting a picture of a duck, referencing a dictionary.com entry defining a duck, and having the post removed since it constitutes 'original research'. The company is regulated in Canada as a legally defined multi-level-marketing plan. The term is not even my own, its written into the Canadian Competition Act, which was referenced on the page, clearly defining what constitutes a multi-level-marketing-plan. The WFG business model clearly and explicitly fits into the description. There is no argument whatsoever to remove that from the page. Its not even a controversial point. Caraski (talk) 09:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm adding the section in question below. I ask that someone please enlighten me as to what sentence constitutes original research.

In addition, the 'multigenerational' [11], and recursive associate-recruiting based compensation [12] business model that WFG follows in Canada places it firmly under classification as a "multi-level-marketing-plan" of business, as classified by the Canadian Competition Act, Section 55 and 55.1, [13] and any company representative operating in Canada is subject to regulation under such classification. While the effects of this on the public perception of the company itself is a matter of debate, this is in line with its predecessor's business model.Caraski (talk) 09:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If nobody comments on this, soon I will revert the above paragraph regarding MLM classification under the Canadian Competition Act. If it gets removed again, I will be requesting mediation. Rgds. Caraski (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree because the term "multi-level marketing" is a controversial term. I also disagree that World Financial Group falls into a category of multi-level marketing (MLM). If you label WFG as MLM then you could argue that other companies in the financial services, insurance, and real estate industries are MLM. In real estate specifically, a broker sponsors agents into their brokerage and the broker earns commission off the agent’s sales. There are at least two respectable nationwide real estate companies that even allow agents earn override commission off any new agents they introduce to the company. Both real estate companies explicitly state that they are not MLM. Likewise, World Financial Group does not claim to be MLM and there are no reliable sources that define them as so. I do know of other companies in various industries that actually put the team “multi-level marketing” in their business opportunity applications. In those industries you typically HAVE to recruit other independent business owners in order to make a substantial income. A World Financial Group agent does not have to recruit in order to make a living in their career. WFG agents may start out at a smaller commission structure than agents in some other financial services or insurance related companies, but there is no requirement to recruit and it is not necessary to do so in order to earn a respectable income. I actually work for a competing company that is larger than AEGON. I'm with my company because of it's higher commission structure and because of it's name recognition. Unlike some less than ethical people in the industry, I choose to not bash or try to damage another companies reputation for my own economic gain. The ONLY people I’ve ever personally heard bash WFG were other colleagues in the financial services or insurance industry. I believe that most of the negative comments on the internet are coming from those types of people. Possible a few were people that failed in starting a financial services career with WFG. That is their own fault and not that of WFG or any other company. Ashboarder (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Ashboarder

To qualify my position, I am an academic. I do not work for any financial organization and have no hidden agenda regarding WFG. Secondly, the two nationwide real estate companies you mention are not WFG, and WFG does not make an explicit claim to not be an MLM company. In addition, while MLM may have gained a certain amount of semantic baggage in the public sphere in lieu of it being closely associated in public discourse with the notion of pyramid scheme, this is not the underlying definition I'm proposing here (although this discussion is, unfortunately under the 'pyramid scheme' heading here, this is not an intentional association on my part). A company may not be fundamentally MLM, but a particular economic activity may still fall under classification under the Canadian Competition Act as a multi-level-marketing-plan of business, and WFG is no exception. The sections of the act in question are unambiguous as to the status of WFG, and as there have been no reliable sources quoted as explicitly stating that WFG is NOT MLM, my position does not fall under synthesis or advancing a point. Finally, WFG representatives, due to the stronger than average for the sector focus on a hierarchical and recursive compensation practices tend to be recruited with a comparatively low level of financial sophistication. While the company boasts its support and training courses, the fact is that they are neither mandatory nor all encompassing, and the end result of this is that a good deal of WFG employees are not qualified or informed enough to offer a degree of financial sophistication to meet the stated goals of the company. Keep in mind that this is coupled with the fact that there is a very narrow range of products offered typically by WFG employees. This lack of sophistication tends to translate into a poorer degree of service, and this is due to the MLM type of structure. Nevertheless be that as it may, the core issue at stake here is that WFG business practices are legally and unambiguously classified as a MLM plan in Canada. Regardless of the public construal of the term MLM, it is also a legally defined term, and the core purpose here is objectivity and NPOV. As "multi level marketing plan" is an explicitly legally defined term, the argument that it should be removed due to it being controversial is in fact not NPOV. Rgds Caraski (talk) 04:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, if there are no SUBSTANTIVE arguments against this legal definition, I will be inserting the paragraph in question. We have reached consensus over at the list of MLM companies board regarding the evidence, and unless there are some strong arguments to the contrary, I see no reason that this should not be in the article. If you still feel it is controversial, I have no qualms about requesting mediation or arbitration. Rgds. Caraski (talk) 09:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I must ask what qualifies you to state that WFG representatives are lacking in "financial sophistication"? How can you justify making such a sweeping general statement that the representatives of an entire organization offer a "poorer degree of service"? That is nothing more than your opinion. How dare you insult some of my industry colleagues that are very passionate, hard-working, knowledgeable, and successful in their chosen profession. That indicates to me that your biased opinion against WFG is the actual reason for you being so intent in labeling the company as MLM in this article. That just does not fly Caraski. Contrary to what you said above, you have not offered any verifiable source to place the MLM label on WFG in Wikipedia. Based on what you said in your latest statement, it is impossible to believe that you do not have a hidden agenda and/or bias against WFG. Ashboarder (talk) 05:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Ashboarder
if you read my statement carefully, hard to do if you're upset I realize, you will see that I did not make any quantitative statements regarding the proportion of associates of WFG lacking said sophistication. That would in effect be impossible. Allow me to clarify my statement. I effectively pointed out that the use of MLM-recruiting practices implies that 'associates' are generally recruited from friends, family, acquaintences, door-to-door, etc. If you take a specific individual, and based on his/her acquaintances or individual network, gauge the financial sophistication of each connected individual, you will get a base value of degree of financial knowledge that is close to the average for the entire population. Therefore, the basic level of financial sophistication of entry level associates is basically the average for the entire population. If you compare this to a financial firm that has a more traditional type recruiting scheme, where associates are employees and are paid salary + commission, it is in the organization's best interest to recruit people with some degree of a financial background. That is why they primarily screen people using CV/resume's and related experience and/or a degree is an asset to employment in such a scenario. A cross section of entry-level employees using a traditional, i.e. NOT a MLM-type recruiting scheme is therefore significantly higher than the average population. Note that I did mention that there are training courses, but that associates are not required to reach a specific obligatory level of sophistication. At the same time most firms offer training courses as well, so the increase in sophistication after employment for the two scenarios can said to be largely analogous. The claim therefore that the average sophistication for MLM-recruited associates vs. traditional resume/CV screening stands. This in no way diminishes from the fact that hard working individuals, as you mention, can do quite well under either scenario. My statement above merely points out that on AVERAGE, a consumer will be better served by a model which consistently recruits highly qualified associates offering a diverse package of financial options than by model which recruits average associates offering a more narrow range of financial options. Lets try to stay factual here, and talk about the article itself. Meta conversation may serve some purpose but its starting to meander. Ad hominems and emotional appeals do not really suit what should be an objective discussion regarding the article. RgdsCaraski (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
It appears the only consensus at the MLM companies "board" is your comments Caraski. So you believe in playing judge and jury? It seems you added World Financial Group to the list and made every single comment about WFG in the discussion section. You mention the same Canadian government website there (that you used here) in your attempt to label WFG as MLM. That same website and the "MLM companies list" on Wikipedia (again where you added WFG) are your only "sources" for your argument, along with your very biased statements against the wonderful people that are representatives with WFG. Ashboarder (talk) 06:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Ashboarder
I urge you to look again at the discussion section. While its true that I did provide primary evidence, I was not the first to post WFG to the list, as well, the evidence I provided was acknowledged by argryiou. Rgds. Caraski (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
While thats certainly an emotional response to what was intended as a succinct observation, you do still have yet to give a substantive argument against legal classification. Here is another source, a security and exchanges commission classification of WFG as a multi-level marketing group. Thats pretty objective. I will quote: "World Financial Group/AEGON USA-owned or operated multi-level marketing group of wealth management advisor networks that have only recently started to aggressively grow in the Canadian marketplace and are now evolving into a more direct producer model for ACI products and services" this is from AEG Annual and Transition Report 20-F Item 4. filed with the SEC. [1]

This along with the Canadian classification practically nails the case shut. There have been no substantial arguments against this at all thus far. Rgds Caraski (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations Caraski on finding a source that helps you to label WFG the way you want. You clearly spent a lot of time and effort to accomplish your goal. Because of your desperate attempt to find a source to prove your point, it makes me laugh when you say you don't have a vested interest in WFG. I must add that I do not appreciate your egotistical attitude. To say that there was no substantial argument, beside your own, is asinine on your part. AshboarderAshboarder (talk)

[edit] Sourcing strictly to wikipedia policy

Since this article is obviously contested and controversial, please only add content that is sourced per Wikipedia policies concerning verifiability and neutral point of view. That means no more primary sources, cobbling together references to argue a point, etc. If you have issues with the information already in the article, please discuss them here with appropriate third-party, independent, verifiable, recognized sources to back up any additions. Achieving consensus is quickest, most efficient way to create a stable article; edit warring just creates a mess that attracts those with big mops. Flowanda | Talk 05:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nascar and other sponsorships

I have moved this content from the main page to the talk page because the sources are either to corporate sites, press releases or sites with no mention of WFG. Before readding any content, let's find sources meeting guidelines.

[edit] Sponsorships

In NASCAR, World Financial Group is a major sponsor of Roush Fenway Racing, sponsoring Carl Edwards's ride part-time on the #60 Ford in the Busch Series. Previously, WFG had sponsored Roush Racing on Edwards' #99 Ford in the NEXTEL Cup Series and the #50 Ford in the Craftsman Truck Series.[2]

WFG recently signed a two-year sponsorship agreement with Fox Sports Network and the Pacific Ten Conference (Pac-10). The Pac-10 - known as the "Conference of Champions" - is a NCAA Division 1 college athletic conference that includes 10 of the biggest schools on the West Coast, including University of Arizona, Arizona State, University of California, Berkeley, University of Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, UCLA, University of Southern California, University of Washington and Washington State University. [3][4]

On Wednesday, Oct. 3, 2007, WFG agreed to a three-year “Bronze Level Sponsorship” of USA Luge. With the sponsorship WFG will support the athletes and programs of USA Luge as they take part in major competitions around the globe.[5]

  1. ^ Brokers Pointing Finger at WMA.
  2. ^ World Financial Group (WFG) - WFG Racing
  3. ^ The Company of Champions meets the Conference of Champions.
  4. ^ Pac-10 Corporate Partners.
  5. ^ World Financial Group Joins USA Luge’s Sponsorship Team.

Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 07:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the NASCAR sponsorship section was already a part of the article for quite some time. I simply moved it to a new sponsorship section and added two other sporting events that WFG sponsors.

It is not true that the sponsorship section for the organizations I added only links to WFG corporate sites. In FACT, the Pac-10 website specifically shows WFG as a corporate partner. All you have to do is scroll down to see the WFG logo along with the other sponsor's logos. You must not be scrolling down and so you are incorrectly assuming that it doesn't mention WFG. Also, the USA Luge website is NOT a WFG site. It is a USU Luge site that lists a contact name and phone number at the USA Luge organization.

Therefore, I do not understand what the problem is with leaving the Sponsorship section in the article. Could you clarify your reasoning. Thank you. DrewbullDrewbull (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello out there Flowanda. I notice you haven't had a chance to respond. Is the Pac-10 website or the USA Luge (a USA Olympic team organization) website not reliable sources? Do you think that either the Pac-10 or USA Luge organizations would actually put a WFG logo on their websites and issue a press release about WFG's sponsorship if it were not a reality. The same goes for the NASCAR vehicles entered by the Roush Fenway Racing team. Could it be that WFG officials are actually going in and putting their logos all over the race car in the darkness of night without permission and lying about sponsorships? Wow, and the Roush Fenway Racing team chooses just to leave the WFG logos on their car. Of course WFG hires hackers to hack into the Pac-10 website and the USA Luge website to place the WFG logo on their sponsorship pages. I don't think so. So to verify if WFG is a sponsor of the Roush Fenway Racing team go look at the car with WFG's logos covering it. I believe it is safe to say that Pac-10 and USA Luge are reliable sources of who their corporate sponsors are.

Ok, forgive my sarcasm, but I think you are taking this to an extreme. Are the only reliable sources Time Magazine and CNN? Sports sponsorships are NOT a contentious thing. Neither is the fact that Mickey Mouse is the property of Walt Disney. Should we require that Walt Disney prove their ownership of the likeness of Mickey Mouse through a newscast on ABC. Wait, don’t they own the ABC Television network? In that case, NBC had better be the reliable source to confirm that Mickey Mouse AND ABC are actually owned by Walt Disney.

Basically, I’m trying to say that I doubt anyone could deny the reality that World Financial Group IS a sponsor of the Roush Fenway Racing team, the Pac-10, and USA Luge. By the way here is the USA Luge website front page with the WFG logo: http://www.usaluge.org/index.php and here is the Roush Fenway Racing team website corporate sponsorship page: http://www.roushracing.com/our_sponsors/default.asp and here again is the Pac-10 website corporate sponsorship page: http://www.pac-10.org/sponsorships/pac10-sponsorships.html

If this was a contentious topic, I could understand why you keep removing something that I took the time to add to the article, instead of asking me to add additional sources if needed (like the three above). Thank you. Oh and oops I forgot to sign... DrewbullDrewbull (talk) 07:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I havent a problem with well argued cases for sponsorship, though the amount of material placed in the article should be proportionate to other sections. The same however should be said regarding the case for classification as MLM. The argumentation behind both is similar, and does not constitute synthesis or arguing a point, and the inclusion of both pieces of information on the page proportionately would balance things under public perception. Rgds. Caraski (talk) 02:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Lawsuits Section

Nightfireop --> This seems to be fairly controversial as a section, although there is certainly a case for mentioning something like what you were trying to accomplish on the page at some point. While the pattern up to now seems to indicate a similar set of lawsuits being filed against WFG as with WMA (Ruiz et al v. WFG et al. 2007 (regarding false statements); Gale v. WFG. 2006 (regarding classification of employees); Roth v. WFG. 2008 (also regarding illegal lack of benefits and misclassification of employees)) I am not entirely clear how to source these as court records are often difficult to obtain online and from the public domain, and I dont know if posting them on the page is consensus. Certainly people should know that there is a pattern of company practices emerging that is quite similar to its predecessor, WMA, but as to how we should probably discuss it here first. If you are interested, there is an academic, peer reviewed paper in the Entrepeneurial Business Law Journal out of Ohio state University that mentions the Gale v. WFG case in 2006, located here: http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/eblj/issues/volume2/number1/11.%20Nicholson%20Article-%20Final%20Book.pdf, but as you may or may not know, the results of that particular case was that the employee in question was too far removed from the parent company, WFG/AEGON in this case, by multi-level tiering of structure. There is currently a legal grey area regarding employee classification in the US under such circumstances, so its a difficult avenue. You may have been on the right track with the Ruiz et al v. WFG case however.

Rgds Caraski (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)