Talk:Pearson v. Chung

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lede[edit]

The lede of this article needs some work:

  • Are there multiple, reliable sources indicating that this case is known as "The Great American Pants Suit", or is this just a clever formulation by one reporter?
  • Has commentary been stirred "around the world"? Five of the sources for this article are from Washington, DC, with the remaining two being from Canada.
  • There is no support for the statement that this suit has "come to symbolize the extent to which lawsuits in America can serve as a weapon for the rapacious". Indirectly referring to Mr Pearson as "rapacious" skirts the line of WP:BLP to say the least, so if such a strong statement cannot be sourced, it should be removed.

Ryanjunk 19:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you love it when users like this are proven wrong, big time? - Cyborg Ninja (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great American Pants Suit[edit]

I notice that one editorial was cited in support of the "Great American Pants Suit" being listed as an alternative name for this lawsuit. I don't think one reporter using this as a clever headline supports it being listed in bold as an alternative title. Thus I am removing it. If there are other sources showing that this has become a common descriptive term for this lawsuit, please cite such external references. Ryanjunk 23:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have also removed the closing sentence of the lede. The cited reference does not say anything about this case being "...used as an example of frivolous lawsuits and the need for tort reform in the United States." Until this claim is referenced it should be removed. Ryanjunk 23:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This edit was reverted with the summary "834 ghits, and give it more than 12 hours to find a cite, come on". The case has been pending for 2 years. If there is not one cited example of the case "being used as an example" as stated in the lede, it's not a verifiable claim. If there are 834 suitable references, please cite them. Until then, policy indicates it should not be in the WP. Ryanjunk 23:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've had the cite tag in the heading for four hours. Give editors a chance to fix the piece. A simple google search could have found the cite yourself, or you could have read the Walter Olson piece. THF 23:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my edits to this article recently; I was removing material which is not cited per Wikipedia policy. Only one editorial writer has referred to this case as "The Great American Pants Suit". It is not a term in popular use and is definitely not at the status of a secondary title to this article. The second edit involves a claim that this case has served as an example of frivolous lawsuits and of the necessity for tort reform. The source cited for this claim does not speak to this at all and is thus irrelevant. No sources cited show that this case has been used anywhere as such an example, never mind that it has become a general example used in more than one case. Cite something like a few law school syllabi to show that this is being used as an example by people other than the Washington Post editorial board. Further discussion would appropriately be on the article's talk page rather than as a revert war or in private Talk pages. Thanks. Ryanjunk 23:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate means to object to uncited material is to add a cite tag and give editors a chance to add a cite. You added the cite tag at 19:33, and deleted the text at 23:54. Editors need more than four hours to fix a problem with an article, and your quick deletion was inappropriate, especially when the cite was obvious and the page was undergoing editing by multiple editors cleaning it up. THF 23:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2400+ Google hits, which is more than many full articles have. THF 00:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these google references all refer to the one and only editorial in which this title was used. There is no evidence that this case's official title is "The Great American Pants Suit", this is the formulation of one editorial writer. The bold reference in the lede is to be used only to specify the subject of the article. There is no evidence that the subject of this article has ever been referred to by any other name than "Pearson v. Chung", the name of the case. The citation and its many hits are irrelevant. Similarly, there is no evidence that anyone apart from Washington Post editorialists are using this as an example for tort reform. Just because one person says it does not make it Verifiable, nor do editorials make particularly good factual references. I'm not interested in pushing any further toward an edit war, but if additional citations do not surface showing that this case is generally referred to by the name "Great American Pants Suit", it will be removed. Ryanjunk 00:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Criminy, someone has to be the first to use a turn of phrase. It's obviously popular, because it keeps getting used. It's been used twice by the WSJ, and the blogosphere repeatedly turns it up. THF 02:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion[edit]

Ryanjunk -- You state that Only one editorial writer has referred to this case as "The Great American Pants Suit," yet there is no problem with this as a source. Editorials are justified citation material, as it is no more or less a published opinion as anything printed in TIME magazine or in a book written by someone like Ron Kuby. It happens to be that the term coined by this editor is quite catchy, and is a bit silly too, and there's no problem in referring to it as long as it's sources are cited. It's also not an obscure source, like something out of the Irish-Antarctica Exploratory Base Monthly Gazzette. If 2,400 hits direct to this reference, it's a fine thing to quote. I also happened to hear it on the radio, which might not be citeable, but it makes me want to say that it belongs in the article. I make no comments about the veracity of the sources for this being an example of tort reform issues. As per policy on the WP:3O page, my offerings are to be nonjudgemental, and I am going out on a limb here trying to remain as such...but gosh -- I think you're being a tad overprotective of your POV. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 02:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it belongs in the article, I do not believe that it is a universal enough term to be considered an alternate title to be placed in bold at the beginning of the article. Compromise by mentioning this coinage in the article but not as an alternate title seems to be a good way to go. Thank you for your input. Ryanjunk 03:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pearson's Appeal[edit]

It can be found here: http://www.onpointnews.com/docs/cleaner6.pdf, in case anybody is interested in linking it to the article.

Done, also re-formatted and organized the external links to group 'em. WLU 16:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actual appeal (as opposed to his motion for reconsideration of verdict) - http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1445313320070814 I've added a short little blurb. Err... sorry about not being entirely sure how to sign... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.146.7.159 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 15 August 2007.

To sign your comments, just put in four ~ characters, like this: ~~~~. Terry Carroll 16:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

$67 Million?[edit]

I was wondering if could someone explain why I see some places say $67 million and other say $65 million as the original amount sought by Pearson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.104.213 (talk) 00:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's two million dollars between friends? Noclip 02:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think there was some confusion as to whether or not lint was found in the cuffs. Gwen Gale 06:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Motion to Dismiss[edit]

Judges generally have the power to dismiss lawsuits of their own volition - in legal terms, "sua sponte." I'm skeptical that the lack of a motion to dismiss is the reason the judge didn't dismiss the lawsuit from the beginning. Despite the outlandish sum sought, there were facts in dispute, and therefore probably enough of a controversy to proceed with at least some discovery and trial. I'm not sure who wrote this part, but it appears to be unsourced and bears some checking into. Beeeej 16:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Pearson[edit]

Is there any background information on the judge? What possessed him to pursue this insanity? Has he been crazy before? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.157.23 (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to know. I bet most people who have heard of this case have wondered what mental condition inspired him to sue. - Cyborg Ninja (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they mean the trial judge, not Pearson. 76.29.154.200 (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bio information on Roy Pearson was to be merged into this article from here but it appears that only items relevant to the case were and bio info was left out. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Court[edit]

Isn't this case back in court as of today? Lots42 (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC) no Smith Jones (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bio[edit]

I reverted the addition of a bio of Roy L. Pearson, Jr. I don't think it is necessary for this article. To just state he was a administrative law judge is enough. Garion96 (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Official Defense Facts[edit]

The 6th and 12th citation cited sources that no longer exist, not to mention they hold some inconsistencies with a fact sheet provided by the defense attorney's firm itself, so i changed the part about how the incident where it start. In addition it would be nice if someone took a look at all the citations because i'm guessing that a lot more than two sources don't work anymore.ricearoni126 (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Several dead links were identified by a bot some time ago. I just removed them. Rhsimard (talk) 09:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bias[edit]

I know that Mr. Pearson lost the case, but still this article seems less than neutral. We're talking about a guy's *pants* here! Can't we be a little more sensitive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.238.69 (talk)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Pearson v. Chung. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pearson v. Chung. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pearson_v._Chung&oldid=1204564725"