From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Find sources: "LegalShield" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference


Info with no sources to back it up removed[edit]

Removed info with no sources to back it up.

This included info with no references whatsoever referring to the actions of a living person.

And also an entire section that had grand total number of sources of ... = zero. (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposing new draft[edit]

Hi there! On behalf LegalShield and The Pollack PR Marketing Group, and as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I have written an updated draft seeking to improve this page. The content of the current article is largely supported by the company's own materials, despite third-party sources being available discussing the company's operations and history. As well, there is little information about what the company does, and newer service offerings are omitted entirely. Finally, some details in the article are simply completely inaccurate, such as the reference to "ongoing troubles in Missouri" (the following details in that paragraph are all about Mississippi). The draft I've prepared aims to address all of these issues and generally bring the article up-to-date.

The draft is saved in my user space here: User:16912 Rhiannon/LegalShield

Key changes in my draft (shown in this diff):

  • New third-party sources added to support the information in the draft, replacing PrePaid Legal / LegalShield / Kroll website links
    • As well, I've incorporated the current external links as references to support information in the article
  • Renamed Company description to Business model and rewritten based on description of the company's business in reliable sources, adding details about two services not previously mentioned:
    • IDShield
    • Launch
  • Expanded the History to include more detail about the company's development over time, adding subheadings to break up the text and make it easier for readers to follow
  • In History, I did add some more detail to clarify the Mississippi legal issues, but removed the Wyoming Attorney General details, as I could find no third-party sources for this and it seemed minor in comparison to the other legal issues
  • There is a proposed Rankings and recognition section covering major rankings (Forbes etc.) and recognition that LegalShield has received

While I've placed the full draft into my user space, to give an idea of the updates as a whole that I'm proposing, I am open to working through section-by-section if editors prefer. I'm eager to get feedback from volunteer editors and, as always, I'm happy to address any questions here or on my user talk page. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Based on a quick look through your draft, there are a number of PROMO/NPOV issues. You bury the company's significant legal issues in a wall of unencyclopedic text (for example: mentioning the company had personnel changes -- why is this significant? companies hire and fire people all the time); use a euphemism for multi-level marketing, and the "business model" section is unduly long and should be shortened. James (talk/contribs) 06:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@James Allison: First and foremost, thank you for taking a look at the proposed draft. I'm sorry to see you have concerns with the expansion, as my goal is to implement a complete, accurate and neutral article. I'll tackle your concerns below, one at a time:
  • Regarding the company's legal issues: Providing a more comprehensive overview of the company was my goal here and I've retained all of the legal issues discussed in the current page, barring the Wyoming ones for which I couldn't find third-party sourcing. Similar to the current live article, I kept the details within the History section to keep information in a neat chronological presentation. The majority of the proposed Initial public offering section is more critical of Pre-Paid, so I am definitely not trying to bury or avoid covering critical information! With that said, is there another way that you would suggest organizing this information?
  • Re: personnel changes, you mentioned these transitions were included as padding. Unless I am overlooking others, the article only mentions CEO and founder Harland Stonecipher, Tom Smith (mentioned in passing in the context of an investigation), and current CEO Jeff Bell by name, which didn't seem excessive or inappropriate to me. Again, these details are mainly included in the current live article. Were you perhaps referring to the mention of the company's restructuring in November 2014? I'd added that to provide context around the company's changes post-acquisition, but if you feel that isn't major enough to include, then I would be fine with trimming. Likewise, if there are other specific details you think should not be included, I'd be happy to look at them.
  • Re: "network marketing" as a euphemism for "multi-level marketing", I used this term based on sourcing. For example, this article says, "LegalShield sells pre-paid legal services through network marketing across the United States and Canada", and this one says "Pre-Paid Legal Services Inc. has provided families and small businesses with access to quality legal services for the past 40 years through a network marketing distribution channel". I assumed the phrase "network marketing", while still linking to the Wikipedia article for "Multi-level marketing", was appropriate.
  • Finally, re: "Business model", I am open to trimming this content if you have any specific suggestions. Eliminating "Both IDShield and LegalShield have mobile apps available to their users" seems like the most obvious sentence to remove, since most companies and products now have apps, but otherwise I think the section provides a good overview of LegalShield's products and services. Do you have more specific thoughts?
Overall, my aim was to provide a more well-rounded overview of the company and its products, services, and history. The content is intended to be accurate and neutral, surrounded by historical context, displayed in chronological order, and reliably sourced. I am happy to discuss the proposed changes further, and if you're willing to make any changes from my draft that you do think are appropriate, that'd help me identify remaining concerns. Thanks again for your initial feedback. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
The proposed overhaul is problematic on several counts. First, the company’s own 10-K filings and annual reports clearly refer to the business model as multi-level marketing.[1][2] Network marketing is a lesser used synonym of multi-level marketing, which seems to have arisen from the multi-level marketing industry to distance itself from the negative connotations associated with MLM.
Regarding the statement “I removed the Wyoming Attorney General details, as I could find no third-party sources for this and it seemed minor in comparison to the other legal issues.” To that, I can only assume you did not look very hard. Here is the source – the Wyoming AG office.[3] The detail is not minor either. It refers to violation of the “Wyoming Multilevel and Pyramid Distributorship Act” and misleading earnings claims – quite significant. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
@Rhode Island Red: Thanks so much for your input! Seems like there's consensus then that it would be better to replace "network marketing" with "multi-level marketing", understood on that point, I'll work on updating in the draft. For Wyoming AG details, apologies if unclear but I meant I couldn't find media coverage, not that there's no source at all (I'd counted the AG's website as a primary source). Usually, media coverage of such legal issues is a good indicator of whether something is major enough to include. If that's something that you (and others) would prefer to keep in the article, it seems reasonable to add. Is there anything else I should look at again in the draft? 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 16:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
The Wyoming case did receive media coverage; e.g., the article in Deseret News by Bernick, which is cited in the current version. The incident took place in 2001, so it is possible that links to other relevant media sources have gone dead but could be turned up through a newspaper archives search. Also, with regard to MLM, I seem to recall that the company reports indicated that MLM accounts for roughly 3/4 of their revenue. So it should be made clear that MLM is the predominant feature of their business model. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
@Rhode Island Red: Ok. How would you suggest incorporating both these details? Especially the MLM one as I'm curious about the sourcing you're thinking of for that point. Also, do you think it would be appropriate to summarize the existing wording regarding Wyoming rather than having the press release quote? 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 18:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

For MLM, the documents I mentioned previously could be cited. No mention of network marketing should be included. Regarding Wyoming, the text and references that are in the article now should stay as they are. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Rhode Island Red: The one point here I would dispute is in adding in something to the effect that multi-level marketing is LegalShield's predominant business model: the sources you're suggesting for this are the old 10k and annual reports, both of which are quite outdated at this point and don't represent accurate sources for the company's revenues etc. (Since then, the company was acquired and renamed and has launched new products and services...) For network marketing, I've removed the mentions of that from the draft and replaced with MLM. I can also add in the Wyoming details. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
@James Allison and Rhode Island Red: Giving you both a quick ping to see if you have any further thoughts on the draft or replies to my notes—I've been offline while traveling, but am back now and happy to look into any further suggestions for the draft. Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I think the best approach might be to go section by section. It's a bit unwieldy dealing with a wholesale rewrite of the entire article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 :@Rhode Island Red: 16912 Rhiannon Dear Everyone, I made changes to the sandbox and then added the text to the main space. Geraldshields11 (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The proposed changes to the article were under discussion here. There was no green light for the revision and it has been reverted pending further discussion. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Rhode Island Red: Did you have any specific concerns with the changes that were made? Geraldshields had reviewed and edited the sandbox draft before adding it in. (Also pinging @Geraldshields11: in case you don't have this Talk page watchlisted.) Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I and another editor had expressed both specific and general concerns (and there are others that I haven't yet detailed) which were to be addressed by going through the material section by section as discussed. We got through one section, and then bang, a brand new article suddenly appeared without further discussion. The point is to reach consensus. Also, given the COI issue, the content proposals require an extra degree of scrutiny. It's not appropriate to circumvent the process. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
One more thing--contacting an outside editor directly and petitioning them to intervene on your behalf to circumvent an ongoing process with other editors is knows as canvassing, which is inappropriate. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Infobox updates[edit]

Per User:Rhode Island Red's suggestion above, I'm splitting my request up by sections, to make for easier review and implementation by editors. To start with, I'd like to propose a refresh of the infobox, to correct outdated information and add in up-to-date key company details, with sourcing. Hopefully this is a simple request to begin with.

The new infobox is below:

Changes proposed:

  • Moving the HQ photo into the infobox
  • Dates added for former company names
  • Updating revenue and employees with sourced figures (most recent publicly available)
  • Updating key people, with sourcing
  • Updating products and services to include identity theft monitoring and remove duplication (currently says pre-paid attorney and legal services)
  • Adding website link

Let me know if you have any feedback or concerns about this request. If the above suggestion looks ok, please can it be added to the article?

Also, pinging User:Dansiman and User:Int21h who recently made some edits regarding the logo. I'd like to request that the logo in the infobox be replaced by the most current logo; the version showing in the article right now includes the old tag line and colors. The .png file showing previously (added by Int21h) is the correct version and I'm happy to provide a higher quality file if needed. As noted previously, I have a COI as I am working on behalf of LegalShield via PPMG as part of my work at Beutler Ink and will not edit this article directly. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 18:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@Rhode Island Red: While I'm working on the draft seeing if I can address your comments below, would you be able to take a look at these infobox updates? Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Infobox looks OK but I would add multi-level marketing to the industry line and would prefer to see more up to date data for number of employees and revenue (proposed data is from 2014) if available. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Great! Unfortunately, I've been unable to find public data on employees and revenue after 2014, likely due to the company not publicizing this information since it went private. Re: MLM as the industry: their industry per sources is legal services and if you include more recent service offerings might be considered to be technology. Multi-level-marketing / network marketing is one method that they use to sell these services, it's not an industry (as a general point: isn't MLM/direct selling/network marketing a business model, not an industry?). It doesn't make sense to me include it in that parameter, but if you feel it must be included elsewhere in the infobox, perhaps there might be another parameter that would be more appropriate? 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
If there are no other questions / adjustments needed to the infobox, would either Geraldshields11 or Rhode Island Red be willing to add this into the article? Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
@Geraldshields11: Also wondering if you might want to look at this and consider adding it into the article while you're continuing to carefully review the rest of the draft? Thanks again!
Meantime, I've tried again with updating the jpg logo image to the most recent version, this time uploading a smaller file in the hopes that this is more acceptable. cc/User:Dansiman and User:Int21h 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks so much to Rhode Island Red for updating the infobox. Would you be able to unhide the logo? I commented it out while the draft version was in my user space / here on the Talk page, so it just needs to have that formatting fixed. Also, I see that you adding "multi-level marketing" in the industry parameter, while I'll leave this for now, I'm still not sure I agree with its addition per my note above. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 02:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I am going to add the infobox to the main article today. Geraldshields11 (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

History updates[edit]

As a second individual request, I'm proposing an updated draft for the History section of the article. The draft is in my userspace here: User:16912 Rhiannon/LegalShield History and here is a diff comparing the draft with the current History text

Changes in the new draft:

  • Addition of third-party sourcing to support all details included
  • Breaking the section up with subsection headings, relating to major milestones
  • Clarification and correction of information about the Mississippi legal issues
  • Addition of more detail about the company's major developments over time

Details from the current History text have been retained and rewritten to reflect sourcing where needed or to improve clarity and flow. In the case of the Wyoming Attorney General letter, the information is included exactly per the current section, following feedback from User:Rhode Island Red (see diff of my addition into the draft). As with the request above, I'm hoping editors can review and use this draft to replace the current text in the article. I won't edit directly since I do have a financial COI: I'm here on behalf of LegalShield via PPMG as part of my work with Beutler Ink. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

After going through the diff edit of the proposed changes I cannot offer my global support. The reorganization using the headings "IPO" and "Acquisition by Mid-Ocean" makes no sense, given that most of the material in those sections pertains to neither. Some material also dropped off for reasons that are unclear. Looks like it would be best to go paragraph by paragraph and discuss the underlying reasons for proposed changes. I'm also not comfortable with the weight given to Direct Selling News as a source, which given its provenance, is shaky. There are a few cases where DSN is cited along with other sources; in those cases I would drop DSN and keep the better sources. Due caution should be exercised when DSN is cited as a stand alone source. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Looking back at it, the diff may not line things up exactly, and if you look closely you'll see I've retained all of the current details but rewritten to improve clarity and reflect sourcing. My concern is that going paragraph by paragraph through the requests would be tedious for editors, but maybe I can provide a breakdown in my userspace and link back here? For the headings, I've based these on the major milestones for the company--what would you suggest instead? Finally, re: Direct Selling News, I have to respectfully disagree: where it is being used is not for any contentious material and the publication is a third-party with journalists writing its content. If there's any particular detail where you think that DSN isn't an appropriate source, let me know and I'm happy to look again. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, would be clearer to go piece by piece. As for subheads, better to not make changes than to try to fit square pegs into round holes. The proposed subheads just just didn't fit. If subheads are used, they should relate to the content and weight. The IPO and the acquisition basically warrant one or two sentences tops so the subheads wouldn't seem appropriate.
DSN is not a good source. It is basically a trade rag/PR mill for the MLM industry and does not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy nor journalism per se. When there are better quality sources that report the same details AS DSN, which was the case with some of the text you proposed, the former should be cited instead. DSN wouldn't be an appropriate standalone citation except perhaps under very limited circumstances, which could be considered on a case by case basis.
One last observation. From an encyclopedic-style perspective, the construction of the history section using a date to begin every paragraph makes it read like a timeline/chronology. Better to write in style that emphasizes the events rather than the dates. Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I like the dates as a roadmap to follow. But that is me. Geraldshields11 (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Rhode Island Red and Geraldshields11: As it looks like we're back to looking at the draft in small chunks, I'd like to start with the first paragraphs of the History section. Looking at the text from the start of my proposed History section, to the end of the first paragraph under the second sub-heading (ie. the first 3 paragraphs), this is intended to replace the current first paragraph of the History section. The major improvement compared with the current text:

  • In the current article, the entire first paragraph of the History is sourced to the old Pre-Paid Legal company website; the new draft uses secondary sourcing to support all of the details

Other changes:

  • Details are rewritten for flow and to reflect the sourcing.
  • There was one detail I haven't been able to find sourcing for and had to remove: " Pre-Paid Legal began using "network marketing" (multi-level marketing or MLM) in 1983." The sources I found in search for this were mirrors for Wikipedia or had clearly pulled this information from Wikipedia, and were not themselves reliable sources.

Do you think the first paragraph of History can be replaced with the first three small paragraphs of History in my updated draft, either with or without section headings as folks prefer?

P.S. As Rhode Island Red is not comfortable with using Direct Selling News (although again, I would note that this is an independent source and pieces are written by journalists, not reprinted press releases), I have been working on replacing this source as possible. Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I never even remotely implied that DSN reprints press releases, which is beside the point. What I said was the following:
“DSN is not a good source. It is basically a trade rag/PR mill for the MLM industry and does not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy nor journalism per se. When there are better quality sources that report the same details as DSN, which was the case with some of the text you proposed, the former should be cited instead. DSN wouldn't be an appropriate standalone citation except perhaps under very limited circumstances, which could be considered on a case by case basis.”[4]
It should also be noted that at least two of the principals at DSN (including the chief editor)[5] are also principals at Success Partners, a PR firm (also located in Plano TX and apparently the parent company of DSN or otherwise closely affiliated) that provides services for MLMs including brand strategy, messaging, sales/marketing, promotion, merchandising, etc.[6] At least two of their “contributing writers” are freelancers who specialize in brand marketing and SEO strategy.[7][8] To suggest that what DSN writes is “journalism”, especially in the WP:RS sense, is an insult to journalism. Please refer back to my initial comment about the caveats and very limited circumstances under which a source like this could be used. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
When you are pinging editors, could you please make sure to ping all those who have commented (i.e., James). It doesn't look good when you omit participation editors who previously expressed concerns about your proposed edits (see also WP:CANVASS). Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I had a look. It's difficult to follow the changes without diff edits (which would be appreciated in the future). A few glaring concerns: (1) multi-level marketing was inexplicably omitted from the first paragraph (this concern was raised previously); (2) the NYT source you cited does not support the founding date of 1976 nor the claim the company was "the first to offer" anything; (3) Concerns were raised, and not addressed in the latest proposed version, about using a separate heading for the IPO as it is a singular event and doesn't seem to warrant a separate heading; (4) DSN is still cited. I stopped reading after that, and on that note, I'm done for the day. Rhode Island Red (talk)
Thanks for taking another look Rhode Island Red. I didn't ping James since he hasn't replied in some time and I didn't want to bug him. But certainly, I do welcome input from @James Allison and Geraldshields11: and anyone else who is interested. Ok, now to respond to your notes above:
  • I went back through your notes and I'm afraid I can't find where adding MLM into the first paragraph of History was discussed before. I know we did discuss adding in a mention about MLM being the predominant source of revenue, but I thought this was in relation to the Business model section. In my notes just above, I did mention that I wasn't able to find a reliable source that mentioned starting to use MLM in 1983
  • The NYT source says: "The club became Pre-Paid Legal Services Inc., the first prepaid legal plan in the United States to cater to individuals" and I've added a cite to the company's 2010 10K to confirm the 1976 establishment as Pre-Paid Legal.
  • I've removed the smaller section headings and suggested two large sections: Pre-Paid Legal and LegalShield
  • I misinterpreted "PR mill" as "reprinting press releases" (this is often what editors point out as being problematic); while I might disagree about DSN, your concerns are noted and I've removed it entirely from the first couple of grafs of History and replaced where possible, rewriting as needed
  • Finally, making a diff that is actually helpful has proven beyond my capabilities (sorry) but I've made a line-by-line breakdown in my user space that might be more useful
Fully updated suggested text can be seen here. Please note I've not finished going through and removing DSN from the whole section / page, but have done so from the first couple of paragraphs of History, which is what we're focusing on here. Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Great! Thanks for the detailed reply and the diff. Have my hands full getting ready to travel tomorrow so will have a look and reply sometime in the next few days. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Seconding that the line-by-line breakdown is extremely helpful. On that page, the second change goes into unnecessary detail about the founding incident and ends up sounding promotional. In the fourth change, I don't follow why it is necessary to mention the method of directing members to firms. In the last change, I would stick to chronological order of events and use a word other than "inducted" (sounds promotional) -- perhaps "listed"? Nothing else pops out as problematic to me, but other editors may catch issues I missed. James (talk/contribs) 12:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that feedback, James. I've adjusted the last change per your suggestion, and clarified in the fourth change that up to the 1980s members could pick their own lawyer, but from then Pre-Paid had a network of preselected lawyers instead. For the founding incident: what would be your suggestion to cut? I only added a little detail compared to the current text.
@Rhode Island Red: Thanks for your note above, looking forward to your review when you have a moment. Thanks again! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
@Rhode Island Red and James Allison: just nudging here again. Any further feedback or is this ready to add to the article? 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 18:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm OK with it if James's concerns are addressed. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@James Allison: Are you happy with the current text? Is it ready to move into the article? Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 18:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Mentioning the single-room office seems unnecessary and promotional. I would completely remove the last sentence from the second change. "first company to offer pre-paid legal plans in the United States that catered to individuals" is too close to the original wording of the source and should be removed or rephrased, "catered to" sounds promotional anyway. I have no other issues with the line-by-line proposed text. James (talk/contribs) 15:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, James! I've removed the sentence re: single room and have re-worded the line about the first company to offer pre-paid legal plans. Do you want to take another peek or are you happy for this to be moved live? (cc/ Rhode Island Red) 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 16:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Good with me. James (talk/contribs) 19:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Great, thanks James! As both you and Rhode Island Red are now comfortable with this wording, would one of you (or maybe Geraldshields11 if he's still following this discussion) be willing to move the first couple of paragraphs of text under History from my userspace live in place of the first paragraph in the live History section? Thanks in advance. Meantime, I'm going to start a new section below for discussion of the next chunk of text. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 02:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks so much for moving the first chunk of History updates live, Rhode Island Red. I did see that the line "Pre-Paid Legal began using "network marketing" (multi-level marketing or MLM) in 1983." is still in there, however -- per my line-by-line breakdown, I'd trimmed this out of the draft that you and James reviewed as there is no sourcing for this information. (It's also out of chronological sequence where it's currently placed.) Can it be cut? If not, what do we do about the lack of sourcing? Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Looking for sources would be a good first step. Try that. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
@Rhode Island Red: sorry if this wasn't clear from my note about this in the line-by-line breakdown, I omitted it in the draft exactly because I was not able to find a source to confirm this detail (I searched at length, though you are welcome to do so as well). I assumed you and James both approved its removal since this was eliminated in the line-by-line. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 02:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Here’s one source[9] and another [10]
Regarding dates, note that the article’s lead currently states: “In 1976 it was incorporated as Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc., and made its initial public offering in 1984.” However, no source is provided for this statement. The article also states: “The club changed its name and incorporated as Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. in 1976,[11]” but the source cited[11] does not say this exactly. It says that the “In 1976, we were formed and acquired our predecessor in a stock exchange” but it doesn’t say “incorporated” or mention the year of the name change per se. The only article of incorporation I could find was from 1984, [12] and there was another source that referred (under History of the Company) to it being incorporated in Georgia in 1983.[13] Perhaps you have some more definitive sources that can clarify the details. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
OK, Rhode Island Red re: the 1976 date from the History--the clearest source I had found for this was Direct Selling News which you prefer not to use. The 1984 and 1983 links you share above are for two different companies with similar names. In that case, perhaps we keep the 10k as a source and adjust the wording to say "renamed and formed as Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. in 1976"? (Per the sourcing used in History, there's this article for the 1984 IPO.) Re: the sourcing for MLM being adopted in 1983, I actually did see both of those sources but since they are both publications that promote MLM, I'd discounted them as not being reliable. For instance, considering your stance towards Direct Selling News I'm surprised to see you suggest Behind MLM as a source for this information. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 13:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I did a search on the Oklahoma Secretary of State website and found Pre-Paid Legal Services' record, noting its formation (it seems OK uses this term instead of incorporation, per its FAQs) date as January 1976. Since OK uses the term "formation" perhaps we simply use that instead of "incorporation" as I suggested just above? 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, although it's possible that "formation" and "incorporation" are being used synonymously in this case, probably better to go with the former just in case there is a difference. Might also want to add the dates of incorporation in CO and/or GA, since there are reliable sources to back it up. I wouldn't necessarily be averse to citing DSN in this case, since it's a fairly trivial detail and backed up by a solid source (the OK gov website), which satisifies what I said earlier about DSN (OK to cite when the detail is fairly trivial and backed up by other sources). The two sources for the 1983 MLM date are not as solid as I would normally like but they do exist and I'm somewhat averse to deleting that line outright. Do you know of any published information that conflicts with that date? You're in touch with the company right? Are they arguing that that date is wrong? Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

That sounds good, Rhode Island Red, except I would suggest not adding the CO and GA incorporation details; I can't tell if American Pre-Paid Legal Services is the same as Pre-Paid Legal Services and National Pre-Paid Legal Services does appear to be incorporation of a company related to Pre-Paid, but is maybe a subsidiary since it has a different name? I'm assuming this is some complexity of corporate structure and given that there aren't secondary sources about it, might be better to not include than include confusing / misleading information. Re: DSN source for the incorporation date, it's the Silcox piece already cited in the article to support key people in the infobox. Re: MLM in 1983: the company isn't arguing that the 1983 date is wrong, but considering the lack of good quality sourcing to support it, it had been my recommendation to trim. If it absolutely must be kept, perhaps we could cite the NYT piece that refers more obliquely to the adoption of network marketing as happening in "the 1980s" described as follows "Just as important, it began recruiting large numbers of sales employees to sell both the legal service and the right to sell it. As a new sales worker is recruited, the person who recruited him earns a commission, just as if he had signed up a new subscriber." They don't specifically say MLM or network marketing, though. Would that work if the wording is adjusted (and of course, the detail moved into chronological order)? 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC) (Edited note to reflect closer reading of the second link 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 16:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC))
I'd be OK with the proposed text based on the NYT piece. Sounds like a reasonable solution. Regarding the company's input, am I correctly interpreting that they are confirming the 1983 date? Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
So Rhode Island Red, to confirm, you're ok with:
  • Using the OK gov website and DSN source to confirm the 1976 incorporation date in the History and introduction
  • Using the NYT piece to note something along the lines of "In the 1980s, the company adopted multi-level marketing or network marketing practices to sell its services."
Re: 1983: I'll be honest and say I've not discussed this line specifically with the company. When I had asked about inaccuracies in the article they did not raise it as an issue, and due to the lack of good sourcing I felt the point was moot and didn't follow up on it. In short: they're not confirming the detail, but they also haven't said to me "this is wrong". 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I had a look at the DSN article again and it strikes me as overtly promotional, so I would go with only the OK gov website, since that alone is sufficient to back up the statement about the founding date. On point #2, yes, let's cite NYT but its not necessary to include "network marketing". I would also modify the statement to say "Since the 1980s, PP has used MLM...", since it's not clear whether there was ever a period when the company did not use MLM.
Ok, that's fine! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 16:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

History updates part 2[edit]

As I had done for the first paragraph of History, I've now added a line-by-line breakdown in my userspace for the next few paragraphs, covering LegalShield's history from 2001 to 2010. Per the full draft in my userspace, this is intended to be the remaining part of the proposed subsection titled Pre-Paid Legal, so that the full first subsection of the history covers all of the events in relation to the company as "Pre-Paid Legal". To reiterate, I do have a financial conflict of interest here as I'm proposing this draft on behalf of LegalShield via PPMG, as part of my work for Beutler Ink. I'm looking for uninvolved editors to review and make the edits if they're appropriate. Please let me know if you have any feedback or questions. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 02:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

No issues with the first paragraph -- looks good to go. Second paragraph though seems like a whitewash. All details of the Wyoming case seem to be purged. I stopped there. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
@Rhode Island Red: the Wyoming case is retained exactly as it is in the current article, per previous feedback here. In case you missed it, it's in the paragraph with the SEC details in the full draft, and I'd noted in the line-by-line breakdown: "Original text retained but moved down to follow SEC details, only change is "In 2001" replaced with "Also that year"". Can you take another look? 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks for clarifying that. A couple of comments on the first parts of the proposed text: chronologically, it is unclear why the details about the Wyoming case (2001) would be moved after the SEC details (2009-2010). Also, there is a proposed statement about the 9 million dollar payout being a “fine”, when in fact, sources describe it as punitive damages awarded to a plaintiff (a former customer). Also, it seems odd to mix in details about corporate earnings with details about the lawsuits. With regard to the class action lawsuit that was overturned, I suggest adding some context (noting, as the source did, that this case alleged that the company was a pyramid scheme). The Chamber of Commerce part seems OK. Let’s see if we can get that far and then assess the rest. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me so quickly, Rhode Island Red! I think we're still not quite on the same page re: Wyoming--it appears in the latter half of the paragraph beginning "In 2001," regarding the SEC requirements about earnings reporting. I've amended the wording re: $9 million damages. For the corporate earnings, I was trying to keep details in chronological order, also I think it helps place the lawsuit information in a bit of context, by demonstrating how large the firm was at the time. Finally, good idea re: class action lawsuit, I added that detail. How are we looking now? Also, while we're working on this, could the first part of the updated History (reviewed above) be moved into the article? 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 16:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
It seems to be unclear where the details on the Wyoming case are to appear. You said after the SEC section but the SEC is mentioned in a few places so could you be more specific? I don't think the statement about earnings belongs sandwiched in the middle of details on lawsuits. Perhaps we might have to re-think the titles/subtitles. Earnings isn't really part of company history either, except perhaps in the very broadest sense, but then pretty much everything about the company could be lumped in as history. I will start moving in some of the approved sections over the weekend. Cheers. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Re: Wyoming: in the line-by-line breakdown, each piece is listed in the order it appears in my proposed draft. So, the Wyoming information appears at the end of the paragraph beginning "In 2001", which you can also see in the full draft in my userspace. Re: earnings, looking at Featured company articles, specifically ones for public companies where revenue is reported (e.g. Delrina and Odwalla), the revenue seems to be discussed within the History section, this is typically what I've done for other company articles I've written, too. That said, I'm not vehemently opposed to breaking it out / adjusting titles/subtitles if you have suggestions on that. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 16:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @James Allison: Have you had a moment to look over this part of the draft (History from 2001 to 2010)? Any questions or suggested edits? Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 16:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LegalShield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LegalShield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Logo picture[edit]

The picture I uploaded, File:LegalShield logo.png is superior to the other logo picture, File:LegalShield logo.jpg and should replace it in the infobox. The JPG version is horribly mangled, with the compression artifacts making it hard to even read, and is a few pixels smaller. 20 pixels does not make a better fair use case, especially when it degenerates the company logo by looking so horrible. The lack of a transparent background, which is preferred for infobox logos (again, so as not to degenerate.) As such, I think the PNG version should be used. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 17:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

It looks like your version has been deleted. However, the current JPG version has an issue too, in that the page identified as the "source" for that image does not appear to actually provide that image for download and use. But I do see on they have included a link to this article, saying "Visit our wikipedia page" - so I think that if you wanted to contact them, they might actually be able to point you to a PNG version that meets Wikipedia's guidelines, perhaps a version of the logo that is specifically labeled (on their end) as preapproved for e.g. journalistic use, thus making it better than a standard non-free fair-use image as the JPG is. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 23:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)