Talk:Pre-paid legal service

NPOV (Neutral POV) Debate

Stale

 – WP:NPOV issues resolved in part, but raised again in a separate topic.

This article is not a frank, write-up of this particular service; rather, it contains sales language that one might use to sell this product; along with some vague 'drawbacks' to fein impartiality (see bold text).

More importantly there should be no discussion of the pros/cons of this service, it should simply say what the service is, and not attempt to sell it. --Allisondata 23:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the "Note" section and changed some other wordings to try to make it more neutral. Dansiman 07:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe I have removed all remaining company-specific information from this page. Can we safely delete the (NPOV) tag now? Dansiman 06:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

For lack of a response, I have assumed a consensus that the edits I made have rendered this page NPOV. Of course, if you disagree, please speak up. I have also added a {{not verified}} tag. Dansiman 23:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Deletion debate

Resolved

 – Article kept, over 5 years.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pre-Paid Legal

I think that this sounds like a negative advertisement toward Pre-Paid Legal Services - Pre-paid legal service should be defined not as a specific company but as a term that people now use. I think this should be deleted'!

I've removed portions of text specific to the one company, but this article could still use a major rewrite. :( --carlb 19:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Two entries?

Resolved

 – Article split without complaint over 5 years ago.

Perhaps there should be two separate entries, one called Pre-paid legal services to refer to the concept, and one called Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. to refer to the company? I realize this may neccessitate either a disambiguation page, or simply a genericized trademark notice (See BAND-AID).

I will go ahead and put this right out there now: I am an Independent Associate of Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc., however, I do appreciate the importance of maintaining NPOV within The Wikipedia Community. As a matter of fact, I am a bit annoyed at the number of associates who feel that the best way to represent the company is to spin the facts to their greatest advantage; or to either try to convince, or alternatively to flame, anyone who speaks negatively of the company or the service. When I was introduced to the concept, no one "hard-sold" me, they simply presented me with facts about how the service worked, what it did, and a personal story about how they themselves used it, and allowed me to decide for myself whether I wanted to participate. I have, in fact, seen this same person present the same information to people who chose not to enroll, and he did not attempt to change their mind. I believe this is truly the ideal way to market the service (especially considering the compensation plan is based on customer retention as well as new sales).

In light of this, I am willing, and, I think, qualified, to watch both topics closely to ensure that they remain both neutral and factual.

Thoughts?

Dansiman 08:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Update: I went ahead and did the split, and used the binary disambiguation link at the top of each. Hopefully this will help to reduce any disputes and edit wars. Dansiman 06:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you're wandering right into WP:COI territory, though the split was a good idea of course. Most people strongly connected to a topic believe themselves easily capable of neutrality about it, but are not. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 18:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Link spam

Resolved

 – WP:EL, WP:SPAM and WP:COI are clear on this.

All the External Link sites are commerical sites that sell pre paid legal services. There is nothing note-worthy about these sites, and hence should be removed.--Davidwiz (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. WP:LINKSTOAVOID #1 is "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article". #5 is "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services". This is pretty clear-cut. Why do these keep getting re-added?[1][2][3] --Underpants (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I just removed them again. It seems that the people who add them are the "independent" affiliates for the various companies, linking to their affiliate page.--Davidwiz (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality problem

This article has a WP:NPOV issue: It is missing all information about criticism of pre-paid legal plans, their marketing, their limitations, etc. PPLs are typically run either like HMOs or like PPOs with all the same attendant problems, and are most often marketed as MLM schemes/scams. Nothing is presented in this article other than positive information, and it has no sources anyway (other than one item of glowing praise that really doesn't have anything to do with the basic facts of the article). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 19:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge to Legal expenses insurance

Sine there has been no objection, I will be attempting the merge soon - unless someone else with more knowledge of the domain (I have none) is willing. Jojalozzo 00:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a distinction between the two concepts, primarily in that Legal expenses insurance is strictly financial, covering the dollar amounts of attorney fees, court costs, and awards to the other party. Pre-paid legal services, on the other hand, tend to cover attorney's fees only, but also provide services such as attorney selection and assignment. I don't know if that is necessarily enough to indicate that it should not be merged, but at least it is something to consider. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 07:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)