Talk:Ameriprise Financial/Archives/2012

firm writing own entry
I agree. Also, The salesmen from Ameriprise keep deleting the information about the regulatory actions. How dishonest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.32.8.213 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC) — 66.32.8.213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I am sad to see that this most crooked of financial firms is now writing its' own entry. caveat emptor —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.72.28.86 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC) — 72.72.28.86 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It is sad to see that wikipedia is being used as a hate site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttmunch101 (talk • contribs) 20:25, January 3, 2007

I agree, why Macca? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Buttmunch101 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Its sad that wikipedia has become just another place for people to hate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttmunch101 (talk • contribs) 18:50, January 4, 2007

This should be written like an encyclopedia not a hate site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Buttmunch101 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

One 'hater': 66.32.30.178 from Georgia using Earthlink DSL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silver101 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 8 January 2007 — Silver101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Actually, the Ameriprise salesmen have been warned to stop changing this site. And, I'm betting you are an Ameriprise salesman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.109.64 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 31 January 2007 — 66.245.109.64 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I am a client of Ameriprise and have been very happy with the advice I have received, but can you direct me to where it states that Ameriprise is the most crooked of all financial firms? Which firms are not as crooked? 209.134.142.140 15:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC) — 209.134.142.140 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This whole article is becoming a joke on message boards and articles about wikiscanner. Salesmen editing this article is becoming so commonplace that I have even voted on it as one of the worst wiki spin jobs. Will someone unbiased please take over this page? Will someone please tell the salespeople to stop erasing the complaint and criticism info...Now we only have information about Secrities America's issues. Previously, the logo was huge and the article was an ad for the company. It goes round and round about having the ameriprisesuck.com link listed and deleted. The webpage can't stand on it's own for a single day without someone trying to make it their own soapbox-generally, in favor of the company. Ameriprise advisors have tv and internet ads already, why do they need wikipedia? I am starting to believe the negative press and rumors about the company simply due to it's agents efforts to control the access to information about the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donating intellect (talk • contribs) 21:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC) — Donating intellect (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * You make a lot of accusations under a lot of names.
 * Mdbrownmsw 19:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Really, I was not aware that I had been on here under various names. But since we are going to accuse each other I am going to accuse you of being an Ameriprise Salesperson. Since you have a MSW (Masters in Social Work right?) and work in investments I would assume that you work for the company. Since as we all know from the recent article in registered rep that the company is well known for hiring people without the education and training to be a financial advisor. Please inform me how a masters degree in social work is relevant to a career in the securities industry? As for the Wikiscanner comment why don't you simply look at the IP addresses or utilize it yourself I believe what we call the result to be-Oh yes-proof! Likewise if you had any intention of being remotely fair as opposed to being biased, illogical and dismissive (do you have to take any logic classes for a MSW-because you do for an advanced degree in economics)you would realize that the other claims of the excessively large logo, the history of editing the page to remove certain items-are also verifiable. You would have to simply look at the history of the article to verify these claims. However, from your dismissive comment it is obvious that you have no intention of doing this as you would rather address me personally and attack my credibility than stick to the issue.
 * Kudos, on taking the time to update the site on the recent fraud charges in NH. You know, where the 500 plans went undelivered to paid customers. Where the charges of forgery by advisors and stonewalling the compliance department are backed up by recently released company memos. I realize that the fact that it has only become a matter of public record, reported on in the national press and become openly discussed in securities industry means is irrelevant. But I am sure that you are going to update it when the case is settled right? Can we expect the same attention to detail from the similar cases being investigated in AL and other states? Also the recently settled case in GA or the fraud and theft charges in TN? Or perhaps you could educate me on the proper time to post an update about the class action lawsuit currently facing the company for not paying it's advisors commissions?
 * I would have thought that someone with your background would have been somewhat concerned with justice or even social justice. But I guess you only fight injustice and corruption when you are not part of the powerful lobby. Thanks for selling out. Please tell me, does it get harder and harder to tell yourself that you are making a difference by helping people with their finances when you hinder the truth of the fraudulent actions by others? Does making sure that a few people have disability insurance and life insurance and perhaps a budget excuse covering up for the corruption of others? Perhaps you should look at the compensation that this companies CEO receives next time you are donating some small amount to a charity to satisfy your guilt, and realize that you are contributing to income inequality in the US and that hindering the truth is hurting others elsewhere financially. That is if you even care anymore...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donating intellect (talk • contribs) 15:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)  — Donating intellect (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Much like the charges against the company that I edited in the article, you take material and build on it, going beyond reasonable assumptions. And you seem to have missed that in several cases I replaced dead links to articles critical of the company with surviving links to the same or similar articles elsewhere.
 * Though I don't currently work in investments in general and have never worked for Ameriprise specifically, you and some anonymous, juvenile moron misread my userpage to say otherwise.
 * The "education and training to be a financial advisor" is not reflected by my MSW. It was reflected by my CFP, but that was a long time ago. I don't use it in my field, so I stopped paying the fee and don't list it. My NASD licenses are also expired parts of my past that I don't regularly list.
 * Your assortment of baseless attacks on me, assumptions about my motives, feelings and integrity are without merit.
 * You noted that "This whole article is becoming a joke on message boards and articles about wikiscanner. Salesmen editing this article is becoming so commonplace that I have even voted on it as one of the worst wiki spin jobs."
 * I tried a google search for +wikiscanner +ameriprise. Of 49 initial hits, ONE actually talked about ameriprise editing this article... and it was on that anti-ameriprise site you love so much. For comparison, I tried +wikiscanner +walmart. Nearly 75,000 hits -- I don't intend to check all of them, but 8 of the first 10 were about doozies like this one.
 * There's an article on WikiScanner, of course. (I hesitate mentioning it, because I half expect you to go there to start peddling your site the site you have absolutely no connection with. It mentions 37 organizations outed for spin-job edits, none related to Ameriprise.
 * "do you have to take any logic classes for a MSW"
 * I remember my logics classes. Discuss: does it constitute tu quoque to point out the irony in this statement?:
 * "you would rather address me personally and attack my credibility than stick to the issue"
 * Now, back to the article...
 * Mdbrownmsw 12:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I see, so you accuse me first and make it a personal matter and then wish to take the high ground and be the better person? You want to complain about my baseless attacks on you, my assumptions about your motives, feelings and integrity when you have done the same to me? When you did it first-because you think that I am the one person that attempted to link a site on here in the past? Under various names, I have been working to place the site on here due to my vested interests. Then to top it all off you return to making it a personal matter about me again. THE WHOLE POINT OF MAKING THE BASELESS ATTACKS ON YOU, YOUR FEELINGS, MOTIVES, ASSUMPTIONS AND INTEGRITY WAS TO MAKE THE POINT THAT YOU ACT LIKE THAT! See that is why I started it off with "But since we are going to accuse each other..." But being illogical and fixated on the Ameriprisesuck.com website and my "peddling" of it seem to be something that you can't let go. Perhaps your emotions are clouding your judgment on the issues more than just a little. Do you think I travel the country breaking into homes in the dead of night so I can try and post the site under various IP addresses? I don't seem to feel as strongly about the ameriprisesuck.com website as you do yet I am the one that is biased? You fail to locate the Wiki site I referred to (so this supports your viewpoint and you stop looking) and you wish to cloud the issue with some Walmart comparison. You wish me to believe that you are impartial in your viewpoint yet you refer to the site in question as being "anti-ameriprise"? The reluctance you have to even mention the ameriprisesuck.com websites name seems odd to me as we are discussing links to the site. You are afraid to mention the name of a site about wikiscanner findings because "I may go there peddling" my site? Although, logically how could I sell something that is free and the result of numerous contributors. My only real avenue for gain would be to hijack it and try and push a viewpoint that I could profit from or benefit from somehow? Anyway, I thought that your concern was with the integrity of wikepidia not the Ameriprisesuck.com website. Or, are you now saying that your feelings on the site is that it is so evil and biased against poor Ameriprise that any promotion of it anywhere would be such a horrible thing? Maybe you should explain to us all what your exact motivations are regarding Ameriprise and Ameriprisesuck.com then we would not have to speculate. Good job with updating the site with the recent fraud and forgery charges in NH, the settlement with the state of Georgia etc. Perhaps if you would visit the Ameriprisesuck.com website you would realize how much is missing from what has become your page. Ironically, the whole Ameriprisesuck.com website would be a complete non-issue with me and I would have never attempted to link to it in the first page had the information critical of the company not been so overly sanitized and essentially useless on this page. Thank you for leading me to the Ameriprisesuck.com website...Donating intellect 08:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC) — Donating intellect (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. "   You make a lot of accusations under a lot of names.    Mdbrownmsw 19:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)" This is your first reply to what is verifiable misconduct of the company altering it's own website. Did you attempt to address the issue? Did you try and collaborate with anyone about improving the page? No, you tried to discredit me as being a person that had made a lot of accusations under a lot of names. You sought to discredit me-not improve the site. I think this alone brings your judgment if not character into question enough that you should allow someone else to maintain this page. If you notice I have had the decency to no longer attempt to edit the page since my motivates have become an issue as opposed to the pages content. Why can't you do the same if you feel that the ethics in question and the goals of wikipedia are important enough?Donating intellect 08:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC) — Donating intellect (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. As for your foray into disproving the wikiscanner findings by being simply unable to find them I would have provided the needed information if you would have asked me. You need not waste your time researching my claims. The time would have been better spent addressing the 36+ regulatory actions that are a matter of public record, yet absent from this site. You too should be able to cast your vote on the Wired Mag page: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/08/vote-on-the-top.html I will check and see if you can still vote on it. If it is absent or has been deleted for some reason I would be more than happy to add the site for you and the general publics benefit. Can we now move beyond the personal attacks and focus on the ameriprise page.Donating intellect 19:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC) — Donating intellect (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Let's play nice
Hello. It seems that there's a struggle between two POVs here. You all should be discussing things here on the article's talk page, but the above commentary borders on a violation of the No Personal Attacks policy. Keep things civil and try to reach a consensus that everyone can be satisfied with instead of just edit warring. Oh yeah, and remember to sign your posts here on the talk page by using four tildes ( ~ ) or hitting the signature button on top of the edit box. Thanks! --Elipongo (Talk 17:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Will someone impartial please take over this page? How can we expect anyone to contribute to the article when the salesmen simply delete the critical information?It is becoming noting more than a free ad for the company and a joke on other message boards and blogs. Donating intellect 15:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC) — Donating intellect (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

NASD Brokercheck
I removed the sentence that was referenced with that source. The URL listed led to a search page. When you click on search you're brought to this Terms and Conditions page that says: The information provided through the NASD BrokerCheck shall be used ONLY for your own personal or professional use, and in accordance with all other terms and conditions of this Agreement:
 * to assist you, your clients or your organization in determining whether to conduct or continue to conduct securities or commodities business with NASD member firms or their associated persons;
 * to assist you, your clients or your organization in judicial proceedings or arbitration proceedings relating to securities or commodities transactions; or
 * for non-commercial purposes consistent with the promotion of just and equitable principles of trade and the protection of investors and the public interest.

I suppose the third point might be applied to use on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure about it.

Once you accept the agreement, and then search for Ameriprise, you're brought to a page where you can click on a link where you have to fill out your full contact information (name & street address required in addition to email), and they say they maybe will mail you something in a couple of business days.

To me, it seems like way too much to go through for one tiny sentence that adds very little to the article. That sentence needs to be left out until a better citation can be found. &mdash;Elipongo (Talk 19:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is simply not true. NASD does not say that 'maybe' they will mail you something. It says "By selecting the Deliver Report option (at the top of the screen) any disclosure information available WILL be forwarded to you within approximately 2 business days." I suggest you go back and take a second look.


 * Therefore, the information posted is verifiable.


 * If you think that having 36 regulatory actions against a firm is not important, then you have no understanding of what is happening in the investment industry and the importance of checking into firms before using them. Both governmental and private agencies highly recommend using NASD Broker Check before selecting a brokerage firm.


 * Please do the right thing and put back what you have deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.109.64 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 16 February 2007 — 66.245.109.64 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * The word "maybe" is directly from the website and is their own emphasis, I did not add it. Look on the left column of the page before you click the envelope at the top of the page. Also, I have a problem with giving them my full name, address, etc. while I could arguably be violating their terms & conditions by using the information for other than my personal use. The argument could be made that use on Wikipedia could be justified by the third point, "for non-commercial purposes consistent with the promotion of just and equitable principles of trade and the protection of investors and the public interest.", however my opinion is that since under the GFDL Wikipedia material can be re-used for commercial purposes we wouldn't be in adherence with that clause. I don't mind going to look something up in a library, if you can't find an online reference, however this one is too much for too little, in my humble opinion. As for your accusation of my ignorance, I suggest that you read the No personal attacks policy. Also, please sign your posts by using four tildes { ~ ) so people can know with whom they are conversing. Thank you and have a great day. &mdash;Elipongo (Talk 15:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You are wrong. The 'maybe' refers to disclosure events - that 'maybe' the firm has disclosure events. Not that 'maybe' you will receive a report. Did you click on 'maybe'? If you do you will see that you are taken to a page that explains "Disclosure Events  Disclosure information MAY exist for this brokerage firm."


 * That YOU don't want to give your name and address to NASD is meaningless in this context. I would hope Wikipedia is not based on your personal opinions. Or are you Jimbo Wales? The bottom line is that the material is highly relevant to Ameriprise and the material is verifiable and from a highly reliable source.


 * Again, please do the right thing and put back what you have deleted.


 * And again, if you think that having 36 regulatory actions against a firm is not important, then you have no understanding of what is happening in the investment industry and the importance of checking into firms before using them. Both governmental and private agencies highly recommend using NASD Broker Check before selecting a brokerage firm. If you think this statement of fact is a personal attack, then that's your opinion. It is not. Most people have no understanding of what is happening at brokerage firms and they have and are paying dearly for that ignorance.


 * I would think that Wikipedia does not embrace ignorance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.109.64 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 18 February 2007 — 66.245.109.64 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * You are correct about the maybe, however it is indeed poorly phrased on the page; but of course these are stock regulators, not English majors.


 * I would like to hear your rational in terms of the licensing issue. My opinion is that it would be a violation of the NASD's terms and conditions to use the material here on Wikipedia. It's obviously not for our own personal or business use, and the third clause's "non-commercial" language conflicts with Wikipedia's GFDL licensing&mdash; articles from Wikipedia can be, and very often are, reproduced for commercial purposes.


 * If you have a reliable secondary source, as preferred per Attribution, I would be happy to cite it and include the material.


 * Regarding the issue of personal attacks, you could very easily have gotten your point across by writing, "People need to understand what is happening in the investment industry and the importance of checking into firms before using them.", rather than aiming the statement specifically at me. That does indeed make it a violation of WP:NPA, but don't worry&mdash; I'm not angry. You should, however, be more careful in the future because other editors are not so patient as myself.


 * Of course, my response to the statement about checking into companies is that I most certainly agree. But I would add that anyone who makes investment decisions based upon an encyclopedia article pretty much deserves whatever they get.[[image:SFriendly.gif|19px]]


 * Again, please remember to sign your posts. Be safe, be well, and have a great day! (I know I am, I'm meeting a lovely young lady for dinner and a show!) &mdash;Elipongo (Talk 18:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not 'poorly worded'. It clearly states "Disclosure Events: Maybe". Additionally, the 'maybe' could easily be clicked on for further information.


 * I am not cutting and pasting any material from the NASD site or report to use here, so I have no idea what you mean by 'licensing issue'. I am truthfully reporting 36 regulatory actions against Ameriprise (very important information) and providing verification via the link.


 * Please do the right thing and put back what you have deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.109.64 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 19 February 2007 — 66.245.109.64 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Okay... their use of the word maybe and the sentence it's used in is the acme of English prose, my eyes were dazzled by its beauty and awesomeness upon my re-reading of it. My mouth was agape and I was short of breath for the sheer ecstasy of just seeing it. I don't know how it could be possible to misunderstand it, it must be all the heavy drinking I've been doing lately. &#9786;


 * Licensing: NASD obviously considers the information itself to be proprietary because they make you agree to terms and conditions before you can even search for it, their website won't positively admit whether or not there even are disclosure events for any individual company (only that there maybe disclosure events and that you can get them emailed to you if there are any), and they send the results only to registered users via private email rather than making the results available on their website. They're going through a lot of effort to see that the information itself is not generally available. That's the way it seems to me, but I could be wrong. If you like, I could get a third party to comment, but I'd rather not escalate this if we can settle it amicably here.


 * Regardless, I have made an addition to the page that I hope will be satisfactory to you without having to escalate this to an RfC. Take a look at it and let me know it it's okay. And again, please sign your posts, I'm getting a little weary of doing it for you. Thanks! &mdash;Elipongo (Talk 17:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have rationally countered all of your arguments to no avail. I'm sorry that I cannot convince you to do the right thing. I am very sad that you had to resort to such sarcasm simply because I corrected your errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.109.64 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 20 February 2007 — 66.245.109.64 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * The facetious remarks were because I had already conceded that you were right about the word, "maybe" but that you continued to harp on it. I have found that editing on Wikipedia requires a sense of humor to avoid getting frustrated with things.


 * As for errors, could you please type ~ after your posts so I don't have to keep doing it for you? It's very tiresome.


 * As for "doing the right thing"; as mentioned above I did make an addition to the article and asked for your thoughts, so what are they? &mdash;Elipongo (Talk 03:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I was not harping. I was telling you that there was no poor wording, as you claimed. My thoughts are that you should replace what you deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.109.64 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 20 February 2007 — 66.245.109.64 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Call it what you will, it has nothing whatsoever to do with this article anyway, lets move on and address the issue. I placed a modified statement about NASD usercheck at the foot of the section, are you telling me that it is inadequate? It addresses the point you brought up that people need to check on a company before they invest. My opinion is that the actual number is not only something that will quickly date, but it is also meaningless without context. Without knowing how many actions there are against other companies, having Thirty-six could actually be interpreted as a good thing by some people because it's a relatively low number. Most people do not know what the NASD is or what it does and may interpret regulatory actions in terms of something they understand, like lawsuits, which any company of size has hundreds going on at any time. This, plus the fact the information is difficult to obtain, difficult to cite properly (how do you cite a private email?), and questionable legally to use make too much for too little, in my opinion.


 * Tell you what though, I'm going to change the language of that last edit to the article to make it a little more specific towards Ameriprise. I'm trying to work with you here, okay?


 * Also, I'm going to put a template on your talk page showing you how to go about signing your posts. Please read it. Thank you. &mdash;Elipongo (Talk 06:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Class action settlement section
I have commented out that section for now. As it is it's a repeat of the material of the source without giving any information about the alleged misdeeds that led to this settlement. It's also way too long, a simple statement that a settlement in the amount of such and such was reached for the such and such alleged actions [citation] would be much better.&mdash;Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 20:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC) I think you will find that the use of the word alleged is erroneous in this matter. At the very least it is misleading as the charges may have been settled without an admission of guilt it would still be inaccurate to characterize them as being alleged. Please review the definition and usage of this term and correct this usage. An example of the proper usage could be found here: http://www.bartleby.com/64/C003/022.html Donating intellect 20:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC) — Donating intellect (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

copyvio 17 September 2007
Amid all the back and forth on amerisux, complaints, etc. some text re regulatory action was flat out copied from : "The Minneapolis financial services firm will pay the Securities and Exchange Commission $45 million for inappropriate mutual fund sales trading practices. The National Association of Securities Dealers fined Ameriprise an additional $12.3 million and the Minnesota Department of Commerce levied an additional $2 million in fines for similar violations."

While it will be easy enough to yank that particular text, I was unable to easily determine who put it up the FIRST time, so I cannot simply check all of their other edits to the page. As a result, I think the whole article needs to be either picked over with a fine-toothed comb or rewritten. Mdbrownmsw 18:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Just finished a quick review of the Criticism section.


 * removed a number of paragraphs as copyvios, but haven't had a chance to rewrite most of them.
 * replaced dead link sources and bad sources (e.g., a lawyer's press release) with current links, citations to original content
 * reworked various claimed "fines" that were actually damage awards, compensation, etc.
 * yanked or corrected various claims of "largest ever" that were misstated or exaggerated.
 * I am sure there is plenty more in the article that is a copyvio, given everything I found, so I've nominated the article for a check.
 * Mdbrownmsw 17:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Does mdbrownmsw work for the company? Does anyone impartial even care about this page? Will someone impartial even bother to look at this page? The other Insurance company pages are not this contentious and obviously edited by the salespeople. It has become a joke in the internet chatrooms and even on the ameriprisesuck.com page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donating intellect (talk • contribs) 21:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)  — Donating intellect (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Oh yeah. Sure, I work for Ameriprise. Right. Darn, you caught me. I tried to hide my tracks by making roughly 2,000 edits and waiting for 18 months before going after my true target, this article.
 * On the other hand, your single purpose account appears out of nowhere. What's your first edit? Returning links to the article for the first time a newly registered or unregistered user could in a couple of weeks.
 * The article had been locked to such edits after "someone" kept putting those same links on the page, getting themselves blocked in the process.
 * Meanwhile, you put up an article about the attack site, with most of the text being directly copied from the site. When it failed Afd, you begged to have it returned. When the proper channels didn't work, you tried elsewhere. Failing that, you started an article about "Wiki-zelotry", which was promptly deleted.
 * The blacklist should have prevented you from re-adding the links, because they were blocked before.
 * Incidentally, that user usually forgot to sign their talk pages
 * Just like you.
 * Just like 66.32.8.213
 * Just like 72.72.28.86
 * Just like 66.245.109.64
 * Just like 72.72.28.86
 * Looking at all of those addresses/IPs, other than never signing talk page entries, what do they have in common? Several things:
 * 1) "They" have repeatedly added and re-added the same attack site URLs to this article after they've been deleted by several other editors, sometimes several times in one day.
 * 2) "They" regularly copied and pasted text from other sites, in violation of copyrights.
 * 3) "They" are the only ones who have added and re-added the offending URLs.
 * 4) "They", and I mean YOU had a prolonged discussion, BY YOURSELF, on this page about how dishonest Ameriprise supposedly is.
 * You've taken up enough of my time. Say bye-bye.
 * Mdbrownmsw 20:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And guess who's back?
 * Funny, it's almost like you never left.
 * Mdbrownmsw 22:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Mdbrownmsw 22:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you ever consider the fact that perhaps it was simply a new user and this was the reason that they left something unsigned? Perhaps more than one person had issues with the company? Maybe even 500 persons in the state of NH. Tell me have you ever researched the complaints about this company at all? because it is more than one site and more than one person. Perhaps someone simply thought that they could contribute something useful to the project? I was unaware of the "offending URL" when I made my first post. I was not aware that you have been fighting the evil demons of the Ameriprisesuck.com site and that this horrible "attack site" would want to besmirch the good name of a company so esteemed by the people of this country. If you notice I reduced the size of the logo to something more reasonable. Why is it that you fail to acknowledge that addition. That precious two minutes of my time to locate a logo that was of a similar size to every other securities company on wikipedia helps greatly to make the site look less like an ad and more like an actual entry. (I can understand how you were unable to do that with not working for Ameriprise and making 4,000+ edits when I just recently learned how to sign my articles-beginners luck I guess) Yet for whatever reason you seem to ignore this much like the edits that can be linked to the company's employees. Choosing instead to focus your tired argument on lumping me in with a bunch of other posters and seeking to discredit me. All because I fell that a complaint site that has been discussed in securities industry trade publications (registered rep this month)and even the hometown newspaper of this company (again this month) would have some bearing on the discussion of the company. Why is it again that you feel that a complaint site mentioned in a national trade publication for the securities industry and the companies headquarters' hometown newspaper (in the same month-this month)has no relevance to the discussion about the company? Is this why you assume that only one person is posting about the site, because it is so unknown to all but a handful of people? Please tell me why when I am a stockbroker that works in the industry and reads and hears about this site that it is not germane to the argument at hand? Because I would have thought that the jokes emailed around about Ameriprise would have been an attack. The purpose of the site is to list criticism and complaints about Ameriprise-how is it logically unrelated to a section of the article by the same title. This site shows up in every google search of Ameriprise, what is the point of hiding it. I would think that it would better the intellectual discussion about Ameriprise to address this issue rather than to pretend it did not exist or to characterize it in such a way that it is excluded from discussion. Especially, when it is not excluded from the discussion elsewhere in the press, in the industry and on the net. Donating intellect 16:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC) — Donating intellect (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please define an attack site
Please advise on the difference between an "attack site" and a consumer opinion website. What is the specific definition of each as this would help me to understand what is a permissible site to quote and or link to under wikipedia rules. Additionally, please define exactly what is an "anti-ameriprise" website. In my future postings I would like to avoid those sites that are not permissible.Donating intellect 20:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC) — Donating intellect (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Ameriprise Financial edits on this page
As per: http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/

Ameriprise Financial Services (Minneapolis, Minnesota) - 10 IP           Edit   ______Comment Made _____________ Date 12.104.244.6 133300284 /* Criticism & controversy */ 2007-05-25 00:28:17 Removed paragraph in critism section Removed referenced sentence in criticism section 12.104.244.6 133300388 /* Criticism & controversy */ 2007-05-25 00:28:54 [Removed referenced sentence in criticism section] 12.104.244.6 133300677 /* Criticism & controversy */ 2007-05-25 00:30:31 Removed entire criticism section 12.104.244.39 106347188 Vandalism__________________2007-02-07 17:10:10 12.104.244.39 122568982 __________________________ 2007-04-13 19:47:38  12.104.244.40 122569697 __________________________   2007-04-13 19:50:32  12.104.244.39 77786937   __________________________     2006-09-25 21:15:57  12.104.244.6 148136856 /* Fee structure */ 2007-07-30 21:52:12 12.104.244.6 148136976 /* Fee structure */ 2007-07-30 21:52:45 12.104.244.40 64894212  __________________________ 2006-07-20 18:30:27

Travb (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Can someone more knowledgable about wiki-code please fix the above post so that it doesn't extend beyond the normal margin. As it is this whole page is alot harder to read on mobile device. Thanks. -A98 98.92.184.135 (talk) 02:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Information which has been removed
Since Mdbrownmsw failed to delete this entire article The editors who closed the delete tag response was:
 * article is not a copyvio...if there's a paraticular paragraph, remove just that

...He/she is now attempting to delete the criticm section, bit by bit.

I have restored many of these edits, exept for these deletions:


 * The total number of regulatory actions that have been imposed on Ameriprise by the FINRA can be found here Or, by using FINRA brokercheck system, available on their homepage.

This is a very typical tactic. When an AfD fails, the wikipedians who want the article removed, will begin removing sections, bit by bit. Travb (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My "typical tactic" was to use the copyvio tag because I saw that the "content of (the) page appear(ed) to infringe on the copyright of the text from the sources"Template:Copyvio
 * Call me crazy.
 * A few examples of the reason for my "tactic":
 * I started with the article saying:
 * "The National Association of Securities Dealers fined Ameriprise an additional $12.3 million and the Minnesota Department of Commerce levied an additional $2 million in fines for similar violations."
 * when the source said:
 * "The National Association of Securities Dealers fined Ameriprise an additional $12.3 million and the Minnesota Department of Commerce levied an additional $2 million in fines for similar violations."
 * (I might have inadvertantly flipped the two around. Please check. I can't be sure.)
 * "An American Express subsidiary that employed a broker who worked under a false name in its Orlando, office and allegedly made bogus investments has been ordered to pay a couple $5.4 million."
 * "Securities America was also fined $5.4 million in 2003 for letting a broker who worked under a false name in its Orlando, office and allegedly made bogus investments."
 * I'm not sure why USAToday had the comma in "Orlando, office". I'm less sure why the wikipedia article did if it wasn't cut-n-paste.
 * This is "typical" as well:. The article said "the single largest fine that the NASD levied that year". It wasn't the "largest that year" nor was it a "fine". "Twenty-six retail firms paid nearly $55 million in fines... In the largest settlement, Ameriprise Financial Inc. agreed to pay $12.3 million." It was the largest settlement of those discussed. The original also said nothing of what the settlement was for. So, they "agreed to pay a $12.3 million to settle NASD charges relating to favorable treatment allegedly given to some mutual funds in exchange for brokerage business."
 * Per the source, I changed:
 * "The State of New Hampshire also levied the largest fine in its history against the company, $7.4 million, in early 2005, based on the charge that the company utilized its financial plan fraudulently&mdash; as a vehicle to sell its propriety products in breach of its fiduciary duties to clients." To
 * "In mid-2005, the State of New Hampshire reached a $7.4 million settlement with American Express Financial Advisors, at the time the largest securities enforcement action in the state's history. The state alleged the company had violated the law by rewarding their financial advisers for recommending underperforming in-house mutual funds to clients."
 * "Early" to "mid" bacause it was. "Fine" to "settlement" because it was. "Largest fine" to "largest securities enforcement action" because that's what the sources say. "In its history" to "at the time the largest...in the state's history" because it was two years ago and I didn't and don't know what's happened since.
 * And, to further my scheme to cover up Ameriprise's history, I replaced the dead link source with the same article with a working link.
 * The next step in my secret plan was to leave the existing source in place for the threatened suspension, then replace the plaintiff's lawyer's unbiased press release with an article from the highly partisan Investment News, replace the since superceeded verdict with the final settlement amount. To further hide their evil, I made one paragraph citing three incidents into three paragraphs, leaving two stories essentially untouched.
 * My next way to hide was to again replace a dead link source (at Bloomberg) with the same story at the WSJ. I changed "penalty" to "(award)" because of "$3.8 million in compensatory damages, ... $3 million in punitive damages, and nearly $2.5 million in costs and attorneys' fees", less than 1/3 (punative damages) is a "penalty". From the article's "against Securities America" I added the "formerly associated broker" because "Securities America, a brokerage unit of Ameriprise, and the broker, Robert Gormly, are liable". I added "for allegedly mishandling their savings" because it was 1) sourcable (unlike the "steered their money into more aggressive funds and trading them on an almost daily basis") and 2) was a reasonable digest of "mishandled their savings by putting them in high-fee mutual funds" and "alleged that Gormly had put their money in funds with 'high fees and trading costs.' The investors alleged negligence, common-law fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, among other things."
 * I'm still not clear how FINRA suddenly popped up here.
 * THEN FINRA did pop up, with the article's:
 * "On July 11, 2007, in the first case of its kind, the NASD fined Securities America $375,000 for improperly sharing directed brokerage commissions from a mutual fund company with a former Securities America broker in the Los Angeles area. The NASD action was a first in the area of directed brokerage commissions; Securities America directed brokerage specifically for the benefit of an individual broker."
 * I said it was another copyvio. Your milage may vary:
 * "In the first case of its kind, NASD announced today that it has fined Securities America, Inc. of Omaha, NE, $375,000 for improperly sharing directed brokerage commissions from a mutual fund company with Michael Bullock, a former Securities America broker in the Los Angeles, CA area." " In this case, the fund company directed brokerage specifically for the benefit of an individual broker - a first."
 * You decided that, despite the direct lifting of text, "revert, an explanation of a respected webpage, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., is not a copyviolation, unless you don't want negative Ameriprise info"
 * What their "explanation" is is NOT the issue. What is at issue is Wp:copyvio.
 * There's plenty more. I'm sure "Donating Intellect" and his clones-that-smell-like-feet put up a bunch of copyright vios.
 * Or maybe it's just part of my "typical tactic".
 * Mdbrownmsw 21:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to rewrite those sections which you feel are copyright violations. (Nevermind fairuse--which would never consider two or three sentences lifted verbatium from an article a copyright violation). I stated that the typical strategy is to put an article up for deletion, and when this fails, delete it bit by bit. If you are an exception to this rule, my sincere apologies.
 * I noticed your contributions to this article. nice job. Travb (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that fair use applies in this instance. By including copyrighted text WITH NO INDICATION in a wikipedia article, we are putting forth that the entire text of the article, INCLUDING THE COPYRIGHTED PORTION, is released under GFDL. The article does not "quote" the text with a citation, it asserts that it is free text created by the editors of wikipedia. It is not.
 * All of the sections I edited out failed in that sense.
 * The policy on Fair Use says, in part:
 * "...copyrighted material...may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met.
 * No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose...."
 * Rewording the sections in question is certainly possible and would fulfill the same purpose as the copyrighted text.
 * Mdbrownmsw 13:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not going to get into a fair use argument with you. I took a course on intellectual property in law school. It qualifies as fair use. Travb (talk) 11:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Did they cover plagiarism in law school? —Nricardo 15:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Fucking hilarious, thanks for the laugh. Travb (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text must be attributed and used verbatim." Wp:fair_use - Mdbrownmsw 18:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you Mdbrownmsw. With that in mind, how would you suggest I best use the emails and personal correspondence detailing the alleged improprieties at Ameriprise Financial recently released by the state of NH?http://www.sos.nh.gov/securities/EnforcOrderINV06-003.pdf Would the letter from the compliance officer to the CEO of the company complaining about the ongoing problems be a permissible source?I am under the assumption that these governmentally released documents are a matter of public record and as such are not subject to copyright issues. Am I correct in assuming the open source nature of these documents?
 * I would likewise like to suggest the documentation from the recently settled case in GA as a source. Would you find any copyright issues with simply utilizing governmental sources as opposed to those in the media? If they are properly sourced?Donating intellect 00:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC) — Donating intellect (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Copyright is only an issue when the text is copied. Sumarize a reliable, verifiable source in a neutral way and there shouldn't be a problem. I was not, in any way, suggesting that the content of the articles is not usable; only that uncited, direct quotes are a violation of wikipedia policy.
 * An additional problem involved POV summaries of the articles. In many instances the source articles said one thing and the wikipedia articles had them saying something else. When the source said "Securities America, a brokerage unit of Ameriprise, and the broker, Robert Gormly, are liable (for) $3.8 million in compensatory damages, ... $3 million in punitive damages, and nearly $2.5 million in costs and attorneys' fees", that is substantially different than a $9.3 million "penalty against Securities America".
 * E-mails are generally not verifiable: there's no way for anyone to verify that an e-mail you received is authentic and the e-mails themselves are probably not "governmentally released documents". If there is anything of meaningful substance in them, however, they likely have been reported on in a reliable source. (Ex: An e-mail to me quoting the U.S. Census is not a reliable source. The U.S. Census is a reliable source, but a sumary of the data in a reliable source is better still.
 * Mdbrownmsw 01:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * From what I read from your lengthy response, I agree 100% Mdbrownmsw. Good points. 01:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travb (talk • contribs)
 * Rewording the sections in question is certainly possible and would fulfill the same purpose as the copyrighted text.
 * Mdbrownmsw 13:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not going to get into a fair use argument with you. I took a course on intellectual property in law school. It qualifies as fair use. Travb (talk) 11:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Did they cover plagiarism in law school? —Nricardo 15:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Fucking hilarious, thanks for the laugh. Travb (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text must be attributed and used verbatim." Wp:fair_use - Mdbrownmsw 18:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you Mdbrownmsw. With that in mind, how would you suggest I best use the emails and personal correspondence detailing the alleged improprieties at Ameriprise Financial recently released by the state of NH?http://www.sos.nh.gov/securities/EnforcOrderINV06-003.pdf Would the letter from the compliance officer to the CEO of the company complaining about the ongoing problems be a permissible source?I am under the assumption that these governmentally released documents are a matter of public record and as such are not subject to copyright issues. Am I correct in assuming the open source nature of these documents?
 * I would likewise like to suggest the documentation from the recently settled case in GA as a source. Would you find any copyright issues with simply utilizing governmental sources as opposed to those in the media? If they are properly sourced?Donating intellect 00:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC) — Donating intellect (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Copyright is only an issue when the text is copied. Sumarize a reliable, verifiable source in a neutral way and there shouldn't be a problem. I was not, in any way, suggesting that the content of the articles is not usable; only that uncited, direct quotes are a violation of wikipedia policy.
 * An additional problem involved POV summaries of the articles. In many instances the source articles said one thing and the wikipedia articles had them saying something else. When the source said "Securities America, a brokerage unit of Ameriprise, and the broker, Robert Gormly, are liable (for) $3.8 million in compensatory damages, ... $3 million in punitive damages, and nearly $2.5 million in costs and attorneys' fees", that is substantially different than a $9.3 million "penalty against Securities America".
 * E-mails are generally not verifiable: there's no way for anyone to verify that an e-mail you received is authentic and the e-mails themselves are probably not "governmentally released documents". If there is anything of meaningful substance in them, however, they likely have been reported on in a reliable source. (Ex: An e-mail to me quoting the U.S. Census is not a reliable source. The U.S. Census is a reliable source, but a sumary of the data in a reliable source is better still.
 * Mdbrownmsw 01:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * From what I read from your lengthy response, I agree 100% Mdbrownmsw. Good points. 01:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travb (talk • contribs)

Linkspam
As detailed previously, there is one editor posting under several names and IPs claiming that any edits ze does not approve of are the work of Ameriprise employees. One of the most frequent of these edits is the removal of a link to hir website detailing various claims against the company. The link was temporarily "blacklisted" from all of wikipedia several months ago and the editor was blocked. Since then, ze has returned. I am currently working to have the site in question permenantly blacklisted. I will continue to remove the link until then, or such time as there is clear evidence that the inclusion is supported by a large number of editors who are NOT sockpuppets of that user. I will also flag this as a violation of the three revert rule as soon as I see it reaching that level. Please discuss. Mdbrownmsw 13:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I was unaware that I was sockpuppet, please review my IP address and let me know how it is that I am one again? Is it contagious? All paranoia aside, why would someone logically prevent the site from being included in the discussion when it is openly discussed in the media? Since the site is not going to go away and is mentioned in local and national press it's relevance to the company is self evident. This month alone it was mentioned here:http://registeredrep.com/advisorland/career/finance_ameriprise_financial/index.html in the industry's own trade publication. I would think that the truth of the wikiscanner results would lead one to believe that Ameriprise salesmen are actually altering the page-but that is just me. They have a reputation for such activities as well as pretending to be satisfied clients in chat rooms and blogs and have been caught doing so elsewhere.Donating intellect 16:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC) — Donating intellect (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

My personal belief is that links to the website(ameriprisesuck.com) are more likely the result of frustration with adding negative information about the company only to have it deleted, rather than any particular obsession with the site in question. The same could be said for the various examples of cut and paste Mdbrownsw has referenced in her prior postings. Why would an individual take the time to add a well written and documented edit about the company when it is just going to be deleted by someone with an opposing agenda. The sad fact is that despite Mdbrownsw and others views about the ameriprisesuck.com website-it not wikipedia-is the more accurate and detailed site in reference to the company. Simply dismissing it as an "attack site" while ignoring the greater scope of it's details and research about the company is intellectually lazy. If they feel so strongly about the need to ban this site, than I would suggest that they first bring this page's content up to a comparable level. To do less than that only serves to discredit wikipedia and stifle the free exchange of information.Donating intellect 21:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC) — Donating intellect (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Current Litigation
What would be the correct method to address the pending litigation against Ameriprise? As these charges are at the present time correctly termed alleged. In particular, I am referring to the fraud and forgery charges in NH and the possible fine of 10 million dollars. Please note that I am not referring to the future fraud and forgery charges referenced in the media in AL, GA and other states as these have not yet been filed. I would assume until such time as they are filed that it would be misleading to refer to them. Here is the press release:http://www.sos.nh.gov/securities/Press_Releases/PRESSR_2007-10-22.pdf Here is a copy of the state's filing: http://www.sos.nh.gov/securities/EnforcOrderINV06-003.pdf Please advise, is it common practice to link to these court findings? Would a prior incident of fraud and forgery of a similar nature from 05 that had been settled be best placed as a supporting detail or would it simply be advisable to place it in it's proper place in the time line of complaints and criticisms? http://www.azcc.gov/divisions/securities/enforcement/Orders/2005/Dec05-05b.pdf Please advise on the proper method for current lawsuits facing the company. Would it be best to lump them under one heading or would it be advisable to separate them into those for consumers and those for benefit of the companies financial advisors?Donating intellect 20:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC) — Donating intellect (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Some additional information
Some additional information that editors of this site may find useful even though it is from a "biased" and "anti-ameriprise site". Editors of this wiki-page can link to and research the original source as a method to preserve neutrality: http://wiki.ameriprisesuck.com/index.php?title=Reasons_not_to_use_Ameriprise * 1 Reasons Not to use Ameriprise o 1.1 Potential Conflict of Interest VUL/Annuities [source of info - Ameriprise] o 1.2 Potential Conflict of Interest: IRAs and SPS [source of info - AMP] o 1.3 Winner of the Lump of Coal Award 2002 and 2006 [Source of info - The Boston Globe] o 1.4 AMP advisors pay less ticket charges to put you in RiverSource Funds over other funds [Source of info - WSJ] o 1.5 Even though term insurance is cheaper and many times more cost effective. AMP won't place people in these products due to the fact they make less money [Source of info - AM Best] o 1.6 The "plan" is nothing more than a marketing tool [Source of info - AXP 10K] o 1.7 RiverSource funds have the second highest average expenses in the industry [Source of info - Investmentnews.com] o 1.8 Numerous class action suits against AMP [Source of info - the courts] o 1.9 NASD fines AEFA for misleading client's with respect to annuities [Source of info - NASD] o 1.10 Look at the terms and conditions [Source of info - AMP] o 1.11 The actual rate of return on VULs is horrible. [Source of info: Consumer Reports] o 1.12 AMP says their non-prop funds are hand-picked. [Source: Investment news] o 1.13 AMP's web site says they provide trusted financial advice. [Source: AMP] o 1.14 AEFA is opposing increased SEC/NASD regulation of branch offices with an independent supervisor. [Source: AEFAs letter to the SEC] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donating intellect (talk • contribs) 01:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC) — Donating intellect (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Current J.D. Power and Association Rankings
Please note, you can find an article about Ameriprise Financial ranking in a J.D. Power and associates survey here:http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/prnewswire/LAW04224102007-1.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donating intellect (talk • contribs) 20:53, October 30, 2007 — Donating intellect (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Class Action Lawsuit for advisors
Class action lawsuit on behalf of Ameriprise Advisors: http://www.heinsmills.com/practice/consumer.htm Over pay in NY: http://www.amexsux.com/pdfs/ameriprise_ny.pdf Over the ADA: http://www.amexsux.com/pdfs/amp_advisor_ada.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donating intellect (talk • contribs) 20:53, October 30, 2007 — Donating intellect (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Additional resources
Or in another format, you can find information on all of these lawsuits on the "attack site" http://wiki.ameriprisesuck.com/index.php?title=Lawsuits * 1 Lawsuits by or Against Ameriprise o 1.1 State of New Hampshire sues and fines Ameriprise for forging documents and other             misdeeds o 1.2 State of Georgia sues and fines Ameriprise for forging documents o 1.3 Ameriprise sues Oppenheimer over the "Dreams" book o 1.4 Ameriprise faces lawsuit in Louisiana o 1.5 Ameriprise faces lawsuit in Mississippi o 1.6 Ameriprise faces lawsuit over the Wilkov fraud o 1.7 Ameriprise faces lawsuit over fraud in Georgia by client o 1.8 Ameriprise faces lawsuit by a former advisor over an ADA claim o 1.9 State of New Hampshire vs. AEFA o 1.10 Ameriprise sues Home National Bank o 1.11 A Tennessee couple and their daughter sue Ameriprise over losing their life savings o 1.12 Former Kansas City Royals baseball player sues Ameriprise o 1.13 Three African-American Advisors in PA sue Ameriprise over racial discrimination o 1.14 A couple in Houston sue Ameriprise over their annuity o 1.15 Ameriprise sues a Massachucetts Advisor o 1.16 A couple in West Virginia sue Ameriprise over squandering their life savings o 1.17 Ameriprise sues Michigan advisors over departure o 1.18 The State of Arizona sues Ameriprise over an advisor forging client's signatures o 1.19 A client of Ameriprise tries to remove his money from Ameriprise without success o 1.20 An Ameriprise client sues Ameriprise over disability payout o 1.21 The State of Massachucetts sues Ameriprise over failure to supervise o 1.22 A Florida Couple sue Ameriprise over a trust account o 1.23 The State of Arizona sues Ameriprise over failure to supervise

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Donating intellect (talk • contribs) 20:53, October 30, 2007 — Donating intellect (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Class Action Lawsuits
Likewise you can find the following information on Ameriprise's current class action lawsuits here: http://wiki.ameriprisesuck.com/index.php?title=Class_Action_Lawsuits * 1 Class Action Lawsuits o 1.1 Arizona and New York Class Action + 1.1.1 Arizona + 1.1.2 New York + 1.1.3 Arizona & New York combined into one case and settled o 1.2 Minnesota Class Action o 1.3 Minnesota Class Action for Advisors o 1.4 California Class Action for Advisors o 1.5 New York Class Action for Advisors o 1.6 Ohio Class Action for Advisors Please note that these links are to court filings, which are a matter of public record and should not present a copyright problem that I am aware of. Additionally, despite what has been termed the biased nature of the "offending URL" you will will be able to find and link to these documents elsewhere on the web.Donating intellect 00:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC) — Donating intellect (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Check google news. if you have access to Lexis Nexis check and see if any papers have refered to these cases.
 * I think the criticism section is enough now. How would you like this article to be written? Most critism sections for an article this size are this size. Travb (talk) 01:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"Controversies" v "Legal Issues"
Fair disclosure: I'm an Ameriprise Advisor, and have been for the last six months (I've been a Financial Advisor for seven years). If you want to have a "Controversies" section, fine. You may want to mention that there is not a single financial institution in existance, nor has there ever been in recorded history, that has not the type of problems that are listed in this section. These issues are unfortunate, but because humans are flawed there will always be bad things that happen everywhere. That said, not everything listed there is a legal issue. Morningstar is a ratings company and has no legal bearing, for example. Leaving the section marked "Controversies" is accurate, and from an encyclopedic point of view avoids making Ameriprise Financial seem extraordinary for what are a relative few incidents. My 2 cents. Rapier1 (talk) 09:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, in hindsight that reversion is fine, no objection here as I had moved the computer security breech into that section (having one sentence about it in its own section was silly). The project does frown on having a Criticism section in general, but a better solution would be some consolidation and summarizing to avoid undue weight, and ideally most of it moved to buillets in the history section.  I am passing however, as I am not familiar enough with the topic areas to trust my reworkings.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with youcompletely. As I am an employee of the company, I don't feel comfortable making these edits either, considering the huge potential for WP:COI complaints, so I'll punt this to someone else. Rapier1 (talk) 03:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)