Talk:Indiana State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler LLC

Obama is not relevant to this article
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)
 * Obama's comments are about the actions of the plaintiffs, so they are relevant. Even though he said those things before the plaintifs filed to have the case heard in federal court, Obama's comments are still relevant, because he is trying to justify what the defendant in the case is doing. Actions that took place before the filing of the case are relevant to the case, and thus, to the article. Also, as President, Obama is the boss of the boss of the Treasury Department. But I don't want to get in an edit war. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Those comments were not about the specific plaintiffs in this case. It is WP:SYNTHESIS (and extremely disingenuous) to claim that those comments were about the Indiana pension funds, when if fact, the pension funds were not even involved at the time he made those comments.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Then who was Obama talking about when he said those things? Grundle2600 (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The Wall St. Journal quotes Obama as saying "a small group of speculators." Then the Journal says, "Far from being speculators, these funds represent retired public employees, including cops and teachers." Since that's all in once source, it's not synthesis, and it's not original research. And it also means I can quote the complete transcript of Obama's speech. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In some quotes he seems to have been talking about the Chrysler bailout / bankruptcy / sale overall, not specifically about the pensioners. In the quote you mention is he talking about the suit, or is he talking about certain investors... and the Journal is noting that he is failing to mention the pensioners among the investors.  I think that could be mentioned in a non-argumentative way.  It would be wrong to imply that his general comments were directed at the issues of this case if they are not, but at the same time I think (in perhaps shortened form, with some additional context) they are useful to explain the background.  To be complete, this article ought to explain the setting from which the case arose and why the administration supported the bankruptcy plan.  Speaking of that, there should probably be a " link to the Chrysler bankruptcy and Automotive industry crisis of 2008-2009 articles.  The former already mentions this lawsuit so I linked that to this article.  Wikidemon (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. After rereadng that article, I do now understand that Obama's comments were not directed specifically at the teachers and police officers. Thank you for taking the time to read everything involved and also for commenting on it. I appreciate it. I won't add any of Obama's past comments to the article. If he says anything new that is genuinely relevant, I might add that. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Obama used "speculators" on the remaining parties that did not agree to the government deal, when Chrysler filed for bankruptcy, though he did not single them out by name. This would go in the background section of this lawsuit.GoldDragon (talk) 03:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Aside from that, the non-TARP lenders also pointed out that Obama and the Democrats had received significant campaign contributions from the UAW, and they suggest that it was the reason why they did not receive as good as a deal as the UAW did. GoldDragon (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As long as a reliable source is cited for each, both of your claims are relevant to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 06:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Even if this does end tomorrow...
... 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 tend to agree. I think notability has been fairly established by enough reliable sources. But it appears unlikely that the Supreme Court will stay the sale which will make this a minor footnote in the history of the Chrysler bankruptcy.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if the court doesn't agree to hear it, this action on the part of the Treasury Department means that contracts can't be trusted as much as before, and that's a huge deal. This could have very long term ramifications. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Even if it wasn't for the Treasury Department's breaking of contracts, the non-TARP lenders have argued that this violated bankruptcy law that prioritizes different creditors, so I suggest that this article could cover the bondholder controversies for both GM and Chrysler.GoldDragon (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Comparison to past Supreme Court cases
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)
 * That doesn't seem to have much relevancy in this case. It's an entire different circumstance and an entirely different area of law. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Both are about the Fifth's amendment's prohibitions against government taking private property. Of course I won't add such a comparison to the article without a reliable source. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha ha! I am not the person who added the stuff that you removed in this edit, despite what you said in your comment. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I moved the article
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)

This article has mutiple issues
I have tagged the article with various tags do to the various problems within it:
 * First off, This article is not written in a NPOV manner. (Please note NPOV does not mean showing both sides of the issue, but walking that fine line between it, taking neither side, and not writing a this side said this and that side said that.)
 * Also, this article seems less about the case and more about the controversy surrounding the bankruptcy which is not the subject of this article, the court case.
 * If this article is about the court case, then it needs to strictly stick to the court case and not all the politics that are attached.
 * There are many lines within the article that need reliable sources to back them up.
 * There are sections that are written in a style that seems to advocate for the subject.

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)


 * I disagree only with the point about sticking strictly to the court case. The case has obvious political overtones, and is being politisized nationally. To not include the political side would mean leaving out an important aspect of the case and its driving factors. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 13:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, some politics must be mentioned, but only in the context of this exact case and no further. However, the reason behind that tag is that the politics should not be the main focus of the article.  There are other articles that go into the politics behind this and this article should focus strictly on this case.  (I.E. no predictions about GM.  No discussion on Obama or his team's actions.  Plus the editors must stay away from sensationalistic wording and predictions.)  Brothejr (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * All of the GM commentary should be removed. It is poorly cited, and not relevant to the court case. GM commentary belongs in another article comparing the two automaker's bankruptcies, not this particular court case. I have taken it out once, and request agreement to take it out again. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The article has one section for the plaintiff, and one section for the defendant. So it cites viewpoints from both sides. The reason the article might seem biased is because the plaintiff is arguing based on both legal grounds and economic grounds, whereas the defendant is arguing based only on economic grounds. In other words, the article reflects the sources. The fact that the defendant has not argued on any legal grounds is entirely the fault of the defendant, and not the fault of anyone who contributed to this article. In other words, if the article seems biased, it's because the defendant has not made a legal case to back up its side, whereas the plaintiff has. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * One reason for some of the "citation needed" tags is because when you access certain Wall St. Journal articles from this article, it only gives the first two paragraphs. But if you access the same articles from google, you get the entire article. So it might seem like sources were not cited, when in fact they were. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The plaintiff makes no statement about owning GM shares. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop erasing Mourdock's quotes.
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)

How is this article unbalanced?
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)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090605093843/http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/wealth-creation-under-attack-15158 to http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/wealth-creation-under-attack-15158

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)