Moreover, if you think the article sucks, your remedy is to fix it and propose edits to it not to delete a notable topic because of problems in a 1-day old article. The article obviously passes GNG and this discussion is a waste of time for all concerned, for such an obviously notable topic. This article already passed one deletion discussion unanimously. Infamia (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Vehement or adamant? The former raises question about WP:BLP and writing "responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone." You should also take a look at the pardon of Chelsea Manning considering all the coverage that particular pardon received. Oh, wait - there is no Pardon of Chelsea Manning; rather it's a reasonable section of the BLP. If any topic or person was notable for a stand alone, I'd have to agree it would be CM and the national security issues vs a local sheriff. If articles about pardons have captured your interest a good place to start is List_of_people_pardoned_or_granted_clemency_by_the_President_of_the_United_States. Trump only has one, and it's not worthy of a stand alone. The most important part is making sure a BLP is not being used for POV purposes which is noncompliant with policy. Atsme📞📧 20:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I'm adamant. To get to the substantive points, Manning is not a comparable case. There is nothing particularly unusual about the Manning pardon, which is a fairly standard pardon, and was not legally controversial. Manning 1) served 7 years of her sentence; 2) expressed contrition for her crimes; 3) was not a close political asssociate of Barack Obama; 4) was not an officer of the law accused of herself violating the constitution she was duty-bound to uphold. There was no constitutional crisis or interesting legal issues raised by the Manning crisis, which was merely politically controversial among certain Republicans. The closest precedent to the Arpaio pardon is the Pardon of Richard Nixon, which does have its own article. I don't think you're appreciating how unusual and notable it is for a person to be pardoned for 1) directly violating the constitution; 2) prior to even being sentenced and who expressed no remorse and made no application for pardon, defeating the purpose of a pardon, which is to spare punishment, not to erase the doing of the crime,; 3) who is directly connected to the person doing the pardon. There were not , to my knowledge, major legal challenges to the constitutionality of the Manning pardon. I don't see how it's a comparable case in any respect aside form the fact that Manning and Arpaio are both well-known. When you refuse to punish for Contempt of Court, you are essentially taking away people's right to come to court in the first place, as what you're saying is that an Order of the Court is toothless, and can be disobeyed at will. It is astonishing that Trump would pardon an associate who served none of his sentence who was found, beyond a reasonable doubt, to have willfully disobeyed the constitution he was duty-bound to uphold as an officer of the law. Again, these aren't my opinions- these are the opinions of the legal professoriate of our nation, many of whom are cited here. We do cover notable legal issues here, don't we?Infamia (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The pardon of chelsea manning is completely irrelevant. It was just a short news story that can fit in into Chelsea Manning. But this pardon: was being talked about for weeks or months, was heavily discussed preceding with Trump's rally (there's a lot to write about of the foreshadowing trump did), was analyzed by numerous legal scholars afterward. Not only that, the story is still continuing because of challenges to its legal validity and the judge's denial of the motion. Here's a politico article a month later discussing how this pardon could break the pardon. The chelsea manning pardon received coverage for about a day or two, if I remember correctly. All this means that the pardon section is, currently, far too big in Joe Arpaio and so should be split off. Galobtter (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)Your only edits have been to Anti-Trump articles and you are acting uncivilly toward other editors. I'm inclined to take your responses with a grain of salt. Natureium (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good for you. Have a heaping of salt, if you'd like. Doesn't make your opinions correct, or supported by sources. Infamia (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
|