Talk:World Financial Group/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  External references 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Problem with Article 

message: I recently made a manual reversion of edits asserting that WFG is not MLM .  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 (, ) 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)
thread_title: MLM yes/no

message: 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)
thread_title:  Third external link contains libel 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Self-Promotion 

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

message: World Financial (and any similar type of group) is a good business for some people and not so good for others.  You're not stupid for liking it, and you're not stupid for NOT liking it either.  So everyone just relax :)  
There are bad apples in every company, and World Financial seems like no exception.  But there are also some genuinely good, hard-working people in every company too, and World Financial seems like no exception.  I'm sure we've all seen our fair share of good, bad, and ugly every where we've worked.
Everyone's trying to get some kind of business going, and the financial field seems like not a bad place to be.  Can't knock them if they succeed, can't knock if they fail, and definitely can't knock them (or yourself) for trying.  
But some people are so angry on this talk page though.  You all need to just relax and do your thing whether it's with this company or any company.  All I know is if I owned my own company (which I do), I probably wouldn't want most of you working for me, especially the angry ones.  Yikes!
Buckwyld43 00:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  relax