![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 25 June 2009. The result of the discussion was no consensus for deletion. |
None of the reliable sources about the lawsuit even mention his name. Taking some quotes by him about Chrysler out of context and presenting them here is simply original research for seemingly POV reasons. There is probably enough notability to create an article here about this lawsuit (if anything actually comes of it), but stick to the subject at hand. -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 19:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
... it has received enough media coverage to be noteworthy. In the future, people will want to read about this. It is encyclopedic. Grundle2600 ( talk) 20:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I think if the Supreme Court does decide to take this case, the votes will be the exact same as with Kelo v. City of New London. I tried to find sources that compared the two, and I did find a few things, but nothing reliable enough to use in the article. If the court does take the case, I suspect that that's the case that the media will most be comparing it to, and I will add a valid source for it to the article if and when such a source becomes available. Grundle2600 ( talk) 18:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I have moved the article. Bloomberg News said the official name is Indiana State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler, 08A1096. Grundle2600 ( talk) 23:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I have tagged the article with various tags do to the various problems within it:
In the end, this article needs a rather major rewrite for it to become a much better article. Brothejr ( talk) 11:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
His mentions of "due process," "rule of law," "fifth amendment," and "private property" are the very basis of his legal arguments. That's what this entire lawsuit is about. Without that info, there's no reason for the article to exist. Please stop erasing these things from the article.
Also, please stop erasing the entire plaintiff section. The article should have one section for the plaintiff's arguments, and one section for the defendant's arguments. To have a section for the defendant's arguments but not one for the plaintiffs arguments violates NPOV. I'm the one who created both sections, because I want the article to be NPOV.
Grundle2600 ( talk) 14:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
People keep saying that this article is unbalanced. But it's not the fault of any wikipedia editors that U.S. bankruptcy law is 100% on the side of the plaintiff, and 100% against the side of the defendant. This is the first time ever in U.S. history that a secured creditor is being treated worse than an unsecured creditor, which is completely contrary to U.S. banktrupcy law. That's not the fault of any wikipedia editor. The article reflects the facts. If some people are upset by the article citing the facts, that's not the fault of any wikipedia editor who wrote the article. Grundle2600 ( talk) 21:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Indiana State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler LLC. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 25 June 2009. The result of the discussion was no consensus for deletion. |
None of the reliable sources about the lawsuit even mention his name. Taking some quotes by him about Chrysler out of context and presenting them here is simply original research for seemingly POV reasons. There is probably enough notability to create an article here about this lawsuit (if anything actually comes of it), but stick to the subject at hand. -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 19:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
... it has received enough media coverage to be noteworthy. In the future, people will want to read about this. It is encyclopedic. Grundle2600 ( talk) 20:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I think if the Supreme Court does decide to take this case, the votes will be the exact same as with Kelo v. City of New London. I tried to find sources that compared the two, and I did find a few things, but nothing reliable enough to use in the article. If the court does take the case, I suspect that that's the case that the media will most be comparing it to, and I will add a valid source for it to the article if and when such a source becomes available. Grundle2600 ( talk) 18:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I have moved the article. Bloomberg News said the official name is Indiana State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler, 08A1096. Grundle2600 ( talk) 23:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I have tagged the article with various tags do to the various problems within it:
In the end, this article needs a rather major rewrite for it to become a much better article. Brothejr ( talk) 11:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
His mentions of "due process," "rule of law," "fifth amendment," and "private property" are the very basis of his legal arguments. That's what this entire lawsuit is about. Without that info, there's no reason for the article to exist. Please stop erasing these things from the article.
Also, please stop erasing the entire plaintiff section. The article should have one section for the plaintiff's arguments, and one section for the defendant's arguments. To have a section for the defendant's arguments but not one for the plaintiffs arguments violates NPOV. I'm the one who created both sections, because I want the article to be NPOV.
Grundle2600 ( talk) 14:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
People keep saying that this article is unbalanced. But it's not the fault of any wikipedia editors that U.S. bankruptcy law is 100% on the side of the plaintiff, and 100% against the side of the defendant. This is the first time ever in U.S. history that a secured creditor is being treated worse than an unsecured creditor, which is completely contrary to U.S. banktrupcy law. That's not the fault of any wikipedia editor. The article reflects the facts. If some people are upset by the article citing the facts, that's not the fault of any wikipedia editor who wrote the article. Grundle2600 ( talk) 21:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Indiana State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler LLC. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)