Talk:Roy L. Pearson, Jr.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-05-03. The result of the discussion was Keep.

	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Chicago This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles

Archives

Talk:Roy L. Pearson, Jr./Archive 1

I have removed two links from this article. One was a whitepages.com link pointing to the personal information of the subject of this article. This is inappropriate and unnecessary. Second was the biography link; Mr Pearson's biographical information has been removed from this link. I have thus removed the biographical information from this article as it is now unsourced, and was basically copied straight from that site anyway, so was a copyvio even when the source still existed. Ryanjunk 19:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't copyright facts. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but you can copyright a particular expression of facts. Ryanjunk 19:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information that is owned and created by the Federal Governement is free to use, under the Freedom of Information act. My strong suggestion is to restore Ryanjunk's incorrect deletions. Roy Pearson's biographical information is a work product of the Government and not copyrighted. Now it is not available here or on the original website (they deleted his biographical page, apparently after they fired him) leaving Wikipedian customers to fend for themselves looking for information from other, less available sources. What are searchers to do? The news is getting old, now it is historical facts that people are looking for. Wikipedia is the proper venue. Ryanjunk claims that once a source of information decides to take that information off of a webpage, it suddenly becomes unsourced. This claim is absurd, and attempts to change history itself by defining it as whatever the current state of the web reflects it to be. This is reminisent of George Orwell's 1984, where history itself was rewritten by the Government.--67.81.119.3 01:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and good point about the government material. And just because a source has been deleted doesn't mean the information contained in it ceases to be true. Google's cache of it still exists, so I'm restoring the deletions and providing a link to the cached version. 199.111.196.221 04:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC) (edit: I did however, take off the whitepages info. Stalking shouldn't be part of Wikipedia and the information is easy enough to find anyway)[reply]

I'd suggest you Assume Good Faith. My removal of the reference and my removal of the information were two separate actions. I removed the reference because it no longer contains any information. I removed the information because it was copied verbatim from the source. Thanks for calling me Big Brother, though, I haven't had a good laugh today. Ryanjunk 19:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, this person is completely wrong. If a source cannot be accessed or no longer exists on the site, then it can't be considered a proper source. We know the information to be true, but it still has to be sourced by something else. Websites change all the time, and Wikipedia has plenty of articles with dead links in them Shadowrun 14:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

News sites get rid of old items all the time. This is one reason a print source is preferable to an online one. It is also why we have the "last accessed" date in the citation templates. -- MisterHand 14:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, there's always a way to cite dead links. WLU 14:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then I correct myself, the guy isn't completely wrong :) Oh well, it still strikes me as a piss poor way of citing information. Shadowrun 14:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reworked the info from google cache to avoid copyviolation.

I've also added a section on the law suit, which I would like to expand but I don't have time for right now. WLU 12:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The google cache contains information from the government. It is not copyrighted, as per the Freedom of Information act. Your google link now points to a mostly deleted web page. Please reconsider reverting the Google link to the cached page. --67.81.119.3 12:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC) Sorry folks I made a mistake here. It appears that the link in the article still points to the Google cache, but the Google cache itself now points to the deleted page at the DC Government. We need to somehow find an older Google cache. I don't know how to do that right now so I will leave it to others. --67.81.119.3 13:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just replaced it with the Yahoo cache. The page isn't archived on archive.org. If it goes dead, I have a screenshot of the page as it was and could upload it. I don't know how well that would do as a source for Wikipedia though. 199.111.196.221 15:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would do fine. All that we need to do is establish the truth of the data. A screen shot verifies it. Even if the present state of the web doesn't show it, the data cannot be denied, even if it is currently different. --67.81.119.3 17:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason Wikipedia thinks that the Yahoo screenshot is an orphan. In other words, the image is not linked to by any web page. I don't know why that is, because I clicked on the link to see the image, therefore there is a link, and that link is the one I clicked on. I don't see any tools anywhere to convince Wikipedia otherwise, so I will leave it to more experienced users to fix it. If it is not fixed, then Wikipedia will delete the image under it's speedy deletion policy.--68.193.161.227 22:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This image was linked as an external link, so it was not appearing in "What Links Here" for the image. I have made it an internal link so it should now no longer appear as orphaned. FYI, to do this you can place a colon (:) in front of the image link, and make it like a regular wikilink. [[:Image:whatever]] Ryanjunk 22:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Custom Cleaners Defense Fund be a reference or an external link? I'm leaning towards external link, though we could have both. WLU 13:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the page due to vandalism. --Wiki Fanatic | Talk 22:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24.90.82.45 06:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last external link should refer to pre-trial, not pre-trail

Werner Cohn 6/14/07

Is someone trying to disbar this guy? If so it should be in the article. F 07:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complaints have been lodged with attorney disciplinary authorities; no action on those complaints has been made public. Someone who has links to those complaints could appropriately post details. 65.102.218.206 17:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which would be an accurate statement, taken literally. I think it's worthy of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.142.237.208 (talk • contribs)

You might want WP:HUMOR or WP:JOKE WLU 13:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Fisher, washingtonpost.com, July 5-- http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/

"Despite a clear finding by D.C. Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff that Pearson's case against Custom Cleaners had no merit and that the cleaners' possible misplacing of a pair of Pearson's pants was not worth a penny to the plaintiff, Pearson is back. He wrote to defense lawyer Christopher Manning this week to let the Chung family know that Pearson plans to file today a motion arguing that Bartnoff failed to address Pearson's legal claims and asking the judge to reverse her verdict in the case."

Someone should add something about this to the page. I can't yet because I am a "new user."

Aastout 18:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that this is a biography of Mr Pearson, and not a news site. Wikinews would probably be an excellent place for this sort of thing. Ryanjunk 19:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the detailed information about the lawsuit itself now exists at Pearson_v._Chung, I am removing redundant information from this article. Ryanjunk 19:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Pearson is not independently notable. This page should be merged into the Pearson v. Chung page. THF 20:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was the primary point in my argument for deletion of this article, however the consensus at that time was that the article be kept. Ryanjunk 20:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was kept because the case was notable. Stripping out every notable aspect of this article leaves it with just the trivia, and there's no point to two articles. Wikipedia convention for notorious civil cases is to have the material under the case name rather than the person's name, so I don't object to the creation of a Pearson v. Chung page, but Pearson himself isn't any more notable than Stella Liebeck or Helen Palsgraf. Merge case-related information into Pearson v. Chung, and turn this page into a redirect. THF 20:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't merge - He has numerous reliable sources that discuss him. He is notable because of the law suit, but once notability is established I think policy supports a separate page (I've never been confident enough to ignore all rules). Any information not directly related to the law suit stays on the page. Might be trivial, but I don't know if it's trivia, and Liebeck was not a trial judge. My opinion is leave the page with a mention of the law suit in the lead and a {{main}} below. WLU 13:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This guy's not a trial judge, either. He's an administrative judge, who can be hired and fired, who has done nothing notable other than the pants-suit. None of his fellow administrative judges have Wikipedia entries, and that's because they're not notable, either. There's no reason to split the Pearson information across two articles; it's not like the Pearson v. Chung article is so huge that it doesn't have room for a new section with two paragraphs. THF 16:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or delete Read the article as it is today, without much information about the case. Pearson is a nobody who's enjoyed his 15 minutes of fame. Nothing about him is notable except his suits (ha ha). He went to school, became a lawyer and a judge, got married and divorced. Wow. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 20:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, see WP:BLP1E. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 19:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge--Don't delete Pearson has become notable as a result of this lawsuit, but his conspicuous role as both plaintiff, attorney and administrative judge has made this case a significant argument for tort reform. As such, his personal bio is a matter of public interest--and public record--and his expertise is germane to the case. One article with all of the relevant information is more useful than two. I would save the bio information, merge the two, and make this article a redirect. (As for the comment above that Pearson isn't more notable than Stella Liebeck, I disagree. These cases are different, especially from a tort abuse perspective. Liebeck originally tried to settle for $20,000, Pearson refused settlement and is claiming an amount over 20 times greater than that in Liebeck. This will be the landmark case.) 68.35.184.95 21:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge -- Pearson himself is not a notable person. He only becomes famous because of the case Pearson vs. Chung. --Kevinfromhk 08:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article as well as the Manning and Sossamon article have information that is worth keeping when they are combined with Pearson v. Chung. I don't think they should merely be "merged" using the merge function. We should scan them for information that could be used to flesh out the Pearson v. Chung article. Aastout 18:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like what? What's notable about Pearson that's in this article, that's not in the Pearson v. Chung article? THF 18:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His bio, for one thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.184.95 (talk • contribs) 19:04, July 14, 2007