Talk:Murthy v. Missouri

This article is about a specific case. It may be appropriate to mention that one of the plaintiffs was also involved in other lawsuits (though even that is debatable), but it inappropriate editorializing to try to frame this as one person's personal agenda by bringing up unrelated lawsuits he also brought. Red Slapper (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the Missouri AG/senator has been filing numerous lawsuits (including this one) that are an attempt to hold the administration accountable. The suits filed have covered more than just social media, so that it is understood this is but one area of concern for them. This is clear in the RSes which do talk to what his personal agenda is. Masem (t) 16:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the Missouri AG/senator has been filing numerous lawsuits (including this one) that are an attempt to hold the administration accountable. - and that information is in the article, and was not removed by me. The other lawsuits are simply not relevant here. Red Slapper (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you took it out, it would just appear he was going after the administration dealing with social media, which is not correct. And one sentence is not going into depth of these other suits...I could talk how many of these succeeded or not. But that level of detail is not necessary, just that they represented more than free speech. Masem (t) 17:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about the Missouri AG/senator, but about a particular case before the Federal court. The source you are using doesn't even mention this particular case, and that entire section probably needs to be taken out, not just the line I previously removed. Red Slapper (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It establishes why the AG filed this case, though a second source to connect it better would help. The articles do link back to am article about these additional case filings, so its not OR. Masem (t) 17:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't even mention this case. You are the one connecting the dots, which is not permissible. Regardless, why he is doing this is not relevant to this case.

To take another example, in an article we both recently edited - 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the legal representation of the plaintiff in that case was by ADF. There is little doubt that ADF brought that lawsuit as part of a strategy to challenge various government policies (affirmative action , freedom of exercise) in which they brought multiple lawsuits, but there is not a word about this in the background section of 303, and rightly so, because the article is about the case, not the ADF. And similarly, this article is about the case, not Schmitt Red Slapper (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

393 is about Smith the website designer, and enough by on her is given to establish that case. What past role of ADF probably can easily be sourced in other articles about the 303 case.

Here, Schmitt is the person at the center of launching this case, so establishing why (wanting to hold the admin accountable) is very much relevant here. One of the article I have reffed for the launch if this case links back to the other 25 cases he filed for the same purpose, so there is no OR there. Masem (t) 17:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Schmitt is the person at the center of launching this case is an opinion, not fact, and a questionable one at that, seeing as the suit was launched jointly by the AGs of Missouri and Louisiana. Please don't substitute your personally held convictions, strong as they may be, for factual encyclopedic content about legal cases. Alternatively, find a (single) reliable source that says this - that Missouri v. Bidne is part of Schmitt's personal agenda against the Biden administration. Red Slapper (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"As it turns out, Starbird is caught up in one of the spate of lawsuits Schmitt has filed against the federal government.

Schmitt is seeking her emails as part of “ongoing research to aid in our lawsuit against the federal government for allegedly colluding with social media giants to suppress freedom of speech,” said Chris Nuelle, the attorney general’s spokesman." That's from one of the Missouri Indeoendent articles, and the one that points back to the earlier ones that explains the range of these lawsuits. Masem (t) 19:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. That's not the source used for the background section

2. This does not mention anything about the loan forgiveness or other lawsuits

3. This focus on Starbird, as one of dozens of people subpoenaed for this case is undue weight, and needs to be taken out if the article as well. Red Slapper (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its in the article , if it needs to be reused there, it can be. The earlier article has the debt forgiveness info. As fir Starburd, there are several other ppl that were subpoenas but which I haven't been able to add yet. There is also the legal challenge to block those subpoenas by the federal govt.

Much of your issues us coming from the fact this article only got started yesterday and can readily be expanded more with material even prior to the injunction. O just didn't have time add wverything, only the core details. Masem (t) 19:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Source A (AP article 1) that says the MO AG Schmitt filed many lawsuits, including some related to oil and gas, student loans etc.. but DOES NOT mention Missouri v. Biden
• Source B (AP article 2) says Schmitt filed numerous lawsuits (again, not mentioning Missouri v. Biden), to bolster his election campaign
• And finally source C (NPR) says Missouri v. Biden is one of several high-profile lawsuits targeting the Biden administration.

The implied conclusion is that Missouri v. Biden was designed to bolster Schmitt's campaign - but that is a conclusion not stated in any of the sources, and thus clear SYNTH.

I will add that even if it was not SYNTH it is undue weight to get into alleged motivations in an article about the case (it may be appropriate on Schmitt's article). But as this is clear SYNTH, we don't even need to go there. It is enough to say what source 3 sasy - that Missouri v. Biden is one of several high-profile lawsuits targeting the Biden administration by Schmitt Red Slapper (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not think this is synth (as there are no other set of high-profile cases filed by Schmitt against the Biden administration during this period, so that's a straight-forward connect), but I have taken it out until I can find something better. --Masem (t) 19:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]