Talk:Mauldin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

No acknowledgement of Wal-Mart's point-of-view

Which is a violation of NPOV, especially since the plaintiffs apparently agreed with it by dropping the case. For-profit attorneys don't drop a meritorious case without taking away any money, especially after a class certification.

I further find it hard to believe that there wasn't an interlocutory appeal over the class certification, but there's no mention of it in the article. THF (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ref for Walmart's point of view? I'll add it if it can be reliably sourced. Otherwise, the tag comes off. Regards, Skomorokh 20:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Try their briefs. THF (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Secondary source, please; our readers don't need legalese. Skomorokh 20:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

In addition, the plaintiffs' attorney in the case was investigated for illegally paying the named plaintiff to file suit, requiring the disqualification of Mauldin as a representative plaintiff. See Mauldin v. Wal-Mart, Inc., Case No. 1:01-CV-2755-JEC (Mar. 21, 2006). There's no mention of that. THF (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

If you have access to reliably sourced relevant information, how about you add it yourself? Skomorokh 20:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

another dubious tag

On August 23, 2002, U.S. District Judge Julie Carnes granted the case class action status, thereby permitting all women who had worked for the company since March 2001 and who were using prescription contraceptives to join the suit and pursue claims against Walmart.

That's not what a class certification order does. THF (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll alter the causal implication in a second. Skomorokh 20:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Done, and both clauses fully supported by refs. Skomorokh 20:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

In which case, it's just factually inaccurate, and I question whether the sources are reliable. THF (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's the quote from the source: "U.S. District Judge Julie Carnes ruled that all women working for Wal-Mart after March 2001 who were using prescription contraceptives can join the suit and pursue claims against the company. Wal-Mart, the nation's largest retailer, has about 1 million employees, 800,000 of them women." It makes no claim about "what a class certification does"; the initial version I added to the article did, but the article no longer does. Is there a factual inaccuracy in the above quote, or just how it is being used in the article? Skomorokh 20:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

That quote is factually inaccurate. See FRCP 23. THF (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

What, specifically, does it say that is in conflict with the other sources? Kaldari (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten that sentence to be more specific. Kaldari (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Disputed line about note in Walmart's quarterly earnings

The quote from the source is "The potential of the case, which gained class-action status in August, was enough for Wal-Mart to note it in its Dec. 6 quarterly filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission as one that could "result in substantial liability."" I reworded this to avoid a copyvio as "This was of sufficient concern to Wal-Mart for the company to include a note in its quarterly filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission in December 6, 2002 that the lawsuit could "result in substantial liability"." What's the problem? Skomorokh 20:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no factual basis for stating Wal-Mart's motivation for including materials in an SEC filing. There's no penalty for being overinclusive in an SEC filing, and substantial liability if someone later says that you were underinclusive. So the kitchen sink gets thrown into SEC filings. It doesn't signal anything other than that a lawyer thought it safest to include a lawsuit where Milberg Weiss was asking for several hundred million dollars (but walked away with zero). THF (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like you got a case of the Truth; is your position that the article misrepresents the source, or that the source is unreliable? Skomorokh 20:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Your rewording certainly changed the meaning. THF (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you like to suggest a rewording? The only reason I phrased it as I did was to avoid plagiarizing the source. Regards, Skomorokh 21:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that the SEC mention isn't notable. Unless money is specifically allocated in reserve, all it reflects is that the lawsuit was filed and asked for a lot of money, and we know that from other sources. That a reporter doesn't understand that reflects on the reliability of the reporter, not the subject. THF (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I read the actually SEC filing, and it looks like THF was right in this case. The filing actually says "The following lawsuits are among the matters pending against the Company which, if decided adversely, may result in substantial liability:" and then it lists about a dozen different lawsuits including a paragraph about the Mauldin case. I've removed the sentence accordingly. Kaldari (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

In this case? I'm always right! ;) THF (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, consulting the primary document does not get one very far here. What is being cited is the journalist's judgement as to why Walmart reported what it did. If it's sufficiently outlandish, the claim can be attributed inline as well as in the footnote. Regards, Skomorokh 21:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Fleshing it out

Can anyone recommend any external links, related Wikipedia articles or navigational templates to add? The article is a little bare as it stands. Skomorokh 21:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles about non-notable lawsuits tend to be bare. THF (talk) 11:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I question whether "consumeraffairs.com", which appears to be a honey-trap for lawyer advertising and client recruiting, and gets basic legal facts wrong, is ever a reliable source. THF (talk) 11:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

dubious dubious tags

I am removing two dubious tags added by THF. The first tag was added to "Ms. magazine estimated the number of eligible women as 400,000." I've checked the source and this is a 100% factual sentence. If Ms. magazine gave a bogus estimate, that's their problem, not ours, after all the sentence says "Ms. magazine estimated...", not "Wikipedia estimates...". As the first sentence of WP:V says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". If there's a different estimate out there somewhere, feel free to add it. Original research, however, has no place on Wikipedia. The second dubious tag I'm removing is for the sentence about class action status. Since both Skomorokh and myself have repeatedly asked THF for an explanation as to why he believes this sentence is incorrect, but he refuses to explain, I can only assume that he is no longer acting in good faith. We have repeatedly edited this (seemingly uncontroversial) sentence and attempted to make it as accurate as possible, but each time THF insists it is incorrect without explaining why. That is not the way we do collaborative editing on Wikipedia. If you have a problem with the sentence, explain it. And I don't mean just tell us it's factually incorrect. Kaldari (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And for the record, I looked at Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23 before the last time I edited the sentence. I didn't see anything there that conflicted with our description. Kaldari (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)