Talk:Blumenthal v. Trump
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Blumenthal v. Trump article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
number of Congresspeople in the lawsuit?
editCurrently the article states fewer than 200 members of Congress are plaintiffs in the lawsuit but this recent newspaper article indicates 200 members of Congress are plaintiffs in the lawsuit. What is the right answer? If it's 200, the Wikipedia article should be updated G1729 (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- At all times "approximately 200" is the correct count. After the Original Complaint (Docket 1, June 14, 2017, with 196 plaintiffs), an Amended Complaint was filed on August 15, 2017 (Docket 14). From the redline attachment it looks like 5 new members of the legislature were added, but for the reasons I will state, I don't know there is special value in an exact count. Notably, on September 28, 2018, Judge Sullivan decribes plantiffs as “ approximately 201 minority Members of the 535 Members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives.” (Docket 59) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6073688/blumenthal-v-trump/ Complicating things is that Al Franken resigned in January 2018 and there was an election in November 2018, so even if there are 201 plantiffs, they may not all be members of Congress now. It's not really material to the article the exact number of plaintiffs since it's the arguments that matter. It's probably too much like original research to cross check the names on Docket 14 against current members of Congress. 2001:4998:EFFD:0:CD15:BE98:5D83:2AE2 (talk) 23:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Some confusion on what happened on July 8-10
editAn update comment by 2001:5B0:4BD1:F558:D2C:B69D:3C23:A6B3 reads "Blumenthal v. Trump Article needs updating because of recent status change (dismissed) and news reports." but nothing was dismissed in this case. Rather on July 8, 2019, Trump petitioned the similarly named D.C. Circuit court for a writ of mandamus (error) to overturn previous rulings. No obvious error was seen by the appeals court and the petition was quickly denied. (But not without impact as the August 21 ruling shows.) However in the parallel case D.C. and Maryland v. Trump, a three judge panel of a different court, 4th Cir., did dismiss that case. That dismissal has itself been appealed to a larger panel of judges from the 4th Cir., with hearings scheduled for December 12, 2019.[1] It can be confusing with three different groups trying to get a court to compel Trump to disclose emouluments prior to accepting them. Nevertheless, the present article has been updated with relevant events. 2001:4998:EFFD:0:9047:3C17:1F61:AD9 (talk) 00:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Oral Argument Calendar: Richmond, Virginia 12/10/2019 - 12/12/2019" (PDF). United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Retrieved October 28, 2019.
Quotes from Complaint
editThere is a small section in the article entitled "quotes from the complaint" which is basically a short quotation from the complaint. I think for neutrality purposes, and to get a fuller picture, it should also include quotes from the defendant's response. Do you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whipassmt (talk • contribs) 04:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Original Research and Importance Section
editOriginal Research notice for the statement: "So the question of how to ensure that foreign payments to the President or organizations which exist for the benefit of the President are not unconstitutional unauthorized payments from foreign governments has not yet been the basis of case law." Done to identify statements that use analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources, or to indicate text which appears to be the unsourced, unpublished conclusions of someone's personal findings.
Importance Section notice added for "Comparison to previously filed suits" section. Could be put into two 'See also' cases.
Action taken - Importance Section for "Comparison to previously filed suits" section
edit"Comparison to previously filed suits" section has been removed to make article much more streamlined and to the point. See edit comments for full changes. USS412 (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)