Talk:Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Business and economics Portal
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
Stub rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

How can I make this page read less like an advertisement? I have tried to include only factual information, and I modeled the page after some other pages about companies. Dansiman 01:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Pre-Paid Legal has been the subject of criticism because of its multi-level marketing structure
See for instance this report from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
The company has also been the subject of lawsuits from its members including two class-action lawsuits in Oklahoma[1][2]
See also [3]
In 2001, the state of Wyoming sued PPL for using prohibited income statements, the case was settled out of court. PRE-PAID LEGAL FACES LEGAL PROBLEMS ITSELF / MLM PLAN DRAWS FIRE, The News & Observer, Raleigh, S.C.
They've also been sued by their shareholders.[4]
These controversies need to be mentioned, otherwise this article is just an advert. Homey 13:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Please feel free to add these items to the article if you feel it would be appropriate and encyclopedic. However, failing to mention controversies does not make the article an advert, it just makes it incomplete.

Advertorial: Describing an article that exists more to advertise or promote a product, company, service or site than to provide encyclopedic information on it.

-From the Wikipedia Glossary
The information I put into the article is all factual, and makes no claims as to whether the company is a "good thing," therefore I maintain that it is not advertorial. Dansiman 02:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


The way to make it less like advertisement is to present facts that are adverse to the company as well as beneficial:
1. Numerous law suites has been filed with regard to company's unethical selling practices and misrepresentative advertising
Yes, several lawsuits have made such allegations. Nearly all of them have been either thrown out or overturned on appeal. Dansiman 02:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Fact that 1/3 of company's revenue comes from the very people who are convinced that they can build successful business selling a product of this company and building their "downline" (i.e. recruiting others to do the same).
Can you provide a source for this "fact"? Dansiman 02:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Links to numerous complaints and stories of people who were directly hurt by the company —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.191.144.12 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 13 June, 2006 (UTC)


Okay, I am a little confused. I spent a couple of hours writing this article, taking care to maintain a NPOV, and six muntes after I posted it, Isopropyl tagged it with (advert). Six minutes later, I posted a request for an explanation on this Talk page. It has been several hours now, and I am still waiting. If the article does actually look like an advertisement, I would love to get some feedback for how to improve it, but without either an explanation of what makes it look like an advertisement, or suggestions to improve it, it appears that Isopropyl's tag was unfounded. Therefore, once I finish typing this, I will learn how to request for comments on this article (I'm still new here), and, if none are forthcoming within 24 hours afterwards, I will remove the (advert) tag. Dansiman 04:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the advert tag. To be honest, the page actually looks quite good now, reading a lot less like a sales pitch than before. Good job on the contributions. Isopropyl 04:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I didn't actually change anything at all between the time you added the advert tag and the time you removed it. Dansiman 05:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Advert

From WP:NOT:

Advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable

Has this been violated? If not, the advert tag should be removed.

From WP:NPOV:

There is a difference between facts and opinions. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute"....
Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone.... The reference requires an identifiable and subjectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name.
Facts... are not Points Of View (POV, here used in the meaning of "opposite of NPOV") in and of themselves.

Is the information in this article fact or opinion? If fact, the advert tag should be removed. If some of it is opinion, it should be attributed to a source, and the advert tag removed. If a significant opposing opinion exists, it should be added to the article and also attributed to a source.

In my opinion, this article already meets the NPOV standards, however, since most (if not all) of the information presently in the article was added by myself, I will leave it as is pending a concensus. Dansiman 07:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] just add a critcism section

as far as I can see a section specificly for critcism, would be enough to make it less advent, i think it sounds advent because the company was built to be advent just in describeing it

It sounds nuetral when taken as a whole with the critism section, but reads like a rollar-coaster. Perhapse the critisism could be integrated into the article.199.89.199.82 05:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Regarding two new entries in the critcism section 13/05/2008

I have been trying to post 2 entries in the "critcism" section, day after day, and THEY KEEP BEING DELETED by someone. I would like to know why this happens.

Here is the data:

  • In April 2008, Pyramid Scheme Alert, PSA, released an extensive report on Pre-Paid Legal's alleged fraudulent business model, stating it is an illegal pyramid scheme and exposing several deceptive tactics used by the company to lure new members into an endless recruiting chain. read PSA's report on PPD
  • In May 2008, the Fraud Discovery Institute, FDI, made public a devastating report on Pre-Paid Legal, after a six month private-investigation period. read FDI's Report on PPD

If anything is out of context, or is abusive, please tell me so and I will correct it. The information is accurate and the all the sources are available. JUST DON'T DELETE EVERYTHING without giving an explanation. Thank you.

Pedro Menard

Mr. Menard, please see the history page for the article. This page shows all edits made to the article, who made them, and what they put for their Edit Summary. You will see that Thebigbopper5000 was the first to revert your edit, leaving a summary of "NPOV" (indicating they felt the edit violated Wikipedia's NPOV policy). Then, when you added your contribution again, I reverted it with no summary, since it had been reverted once and I agreed with the reversion. After you again added the content, I reverted it with a more descriptive summary: "These links have been identified as violating WP:NPOV. Please discuss on the talk page before re-adding them."
Before you add this content again, I suggest you do the following:
  • Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Determine whether your contribution follows or violates this policy.
    • If, after reviewing the policy, you feel your edit has not violated policy, state your case here first. Thebigbopper5000, myself, and any other editor may feel differently, and we can discuss it here and reach a consensus.
    • If you review the NPOV policy and decide your edit does violate the policy, consider how you could change it to fit in line with policy, perhaps by rewording it.
You may also want to Wikipedia:Create an account, since you are editing from a dynamic IP address. Creating an account has many benefits, particularly for a dynamic IP user, such as the ability to receive talk messages and review your own contributions.
Thanks, Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 01:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Dansiman, I've read the "Neutral point of view" policy. I agree I am in violation of the same. Nevertheless, I consider important to publish the information above, and I will take your advice and "reword" the sentences. I will not add the comment again in the "main page" before having reached a consensus here.
I thus propose the following alterations:
  • In April 2008, Pyramid Scheme Alert, PSA, released an extensive report on Pre-Paid Legal's business model. It alleges PPD promotes an endless pyramid recruiting scheme, and it details mathematical and demographic reasons for an anticipated decline.read PSA's report on PPD
  • In May 2008, the Fraud Discovery Institute, FDI, made public a report on Pre-Paid Legal after a six month private-investigation period, endorsing PSA's point of view on the matter. read FDI's Report on a dedicated URL
Thanks,
Pedro Menard (14/05/2008)
This is better, in my opinion. Go ahead and upload that version to the article. If anyone else takes issue at that point we can discuss further.
P.S. You should sign your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~). —Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 00:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Reasons to delete fake and misleading "reports"

1)The "Fraud Discovery Institute" gets paid to bash stocks. 2)It is unreliable according to his own disclaimer

It must be understood and clearly disclosed that just because FDI says a company, especially a public company, is an apparent financial fraud in progress, unless law enforcement corroborates such findings it is a meaningless conclusion as the finder of fact is always law enforcement and the courts.

Barry Minkow almost always holds a position in securities reported on, or profiled by, FDI websites. Neither FDI nor Mr. Minkow will report when a position is initiated or covered. Each investor must make that decision based on his/her judgment of the market. We always insist that anyone who relies on our reports, independently corroborate our findings before making any decisions. The Fraud Discovery Institute, Inc. has a for profit model

http://www.frauddiscovery.net/privacy.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameisstanley (talk • contribs) 02:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no...Here we go again!
Stanley, the Section "Criticism" doesn't mean that everything in it has to be verified through law enforcement or the courts (the section tilte, after all, is not "Litigation", I believe). That is no acceptable excuse to delete the entries. You might not like to see it there, You might think FDI's investigations are biased, but the information is totally relevant when "criticism" is the word in use. People should be allowed to access it in this page, and to make their own decision about what it discloses. It is as simple as that.
It is my opinion that FDI is not "PAID TO BASH STOCKS" and that it is not "unreliable according to his own disclaimer". Those are solely your opinions, not verifiable. And I guess my opinions on those subjects are as valid as yours.
So, you have deleted two entries based on your own subjective opinions, in a section which did not require a specific rule that you have also utilized to do it.
Also, You DO NOT MENTION PSA'S repport on your explanation. So why did you delete that specific entry?
Pedro Menard 28/05/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.243.228.167 (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move Suggestion

Shouldn't this be moved to Pre-Paid Legal Services to comply with WP naming conventions? – ukexpat (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops I see why not. – ukexpat (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)