Talk:Pre-paid legal services

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] NPOV (Neutral POV) Debate

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)

[edit] Deletion debate

Template:VfD-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)

[edit] Two entries?

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)