Talk:Cohen v. Trump

name

I'm not sure we need this WP entry, but I do know it's not a good name for it. The case-title convention is much abbreviated. See, for example, Zubik v. Burwell. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The "ethnicity" paragraph

That information seems out of place here. It has no context, and the comment may have referred to either or both of the class action suits. I suggest it go in the "Curiel" or "Trump University" articles instead, where there is more context. Let's limit this article (if if does remain a separate article; I favor a redirect at this point) to the legal aspects of the case. --MelanieN (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ranze:, you re-added something that was deleted, meaning it was controversial. You restored it purely on your assertion that "this part certainly is relevant". That is not how it works. We work by consensus, not by somebody simply asserting what they think. The system here is WP:BRD. That means: you make a bold edit (which you did); someone reverts it (which I did); and then we discuss it. "Discuss" doesn't mean simply make an assertion in the edit summary. It means come to the talk page and DISCUSS. Per BRD, "Discuss the edit, and the reasons for the edit, on the article's talk page. Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverts, because that will probably be viewed as edit-warring." I see that you did the the same thing at the Curiel article, even though nobody approved it in the extensive discussions at the talk page. Please stop trying to force your own POV into the article, just because YOU think it is relevant and even though no one else has agreed. That kind of behavior can lead to sanctions. This article is about the legal case. It's not about Trump's accusations against Curiel - unless, perhaps, his lawyers ask for Curiel to be removed from the case - and it's not about what organizations the judge belongs to. This sentence is particularly bad because it is WP:SYNTHESIS; linking two unrelated facts into one sentence to imply a connection. I am going to remove it for that reason. I suggested earlier that the whole "ethnic" paragraph be deleted; nobody has responded because this article isn't on anyone's radar. But I still think it doesn't belong here. --MelanieN (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

And if we're going to have a sentence about Trump thinking Curiel's heritage will make him biased, don't talk around it with what some writer said about what some Trump spokesperson said. Quote Trump directly: “He is a Mexican. We are building a wall between here and Mexico,” Trump said when asked what basis he has for alleging the bias, referring to the border wall he has proposed to build. “And the answer is he is giving us very unfair rulings. Rulings people can’t even believe.” ... Then he mentioned his plans for a wall and the judge’s Mexican heritage yet again. “That’s why he is doing it,” Trump said.[1] --MelanieN (talk) 03:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Cohen v. Trump

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Cohen v. Trump's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "trialdate":

• From Gonzalo P. Curiel: "Trial date set in Trump University lawsuit". CBS News. May 6, 2016. Retrieved May 28, 2016.
• From Donald Trump: "Trial date set in Trump University lawsuit". CBS News. May 6, 2016. Retrieved May 28, 2016.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Merge to Trump University. It turns out this case has been settled, along with the other class action suit and the New York suit. Since there will not be a trial and thus little or nothing further to say about this case, I think this should be merged back into the Trump University article. --MelanieN (talk) 03:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to User:Toddst1 who created this article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Neutrality^talk 03:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support Toddst1 (talk) 14:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that's pretty much everybody following this article. I'm going to go ahead and do the merge. --MelanieN (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)