Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pardon of Joe Arpaio (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. There is still a delete opinion here, so we don't have a speedy keep as withdrawn, but the consensus seems so overwhelming that there's little point in waiting. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon of Joe Arpaio

edit
AfDs for this article:
Pardon of Joe Arpaio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:Soapbox attack-like article with speculation and innuendo. The pardon was already mentioned in Presidency of Donald Trump and there's a long, detailed section in Joe Arpaio#Trump Presidential pardon with 88 mentions of the word "pardon" in that article. UNDUE is putting it mildly. Atsme📞📧 18:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

90% copied makes it a copyvio which should be speedy deleted because of the multiple authors involved who are not credited in this article. Aside from that, it's nothing more than a "newsy" event, Galobtter. It holds little encyclopedic value beyond POV in what appears' to be a soapbox attempt to either justify the pardon, or condemn it. It was a pardon, period the end. Everything surrounding why is speculation, and even though it was covered by MSM, it doesn't warrant as much coverage as it has already received in the article, nevermind a stand alone. Not everything that is covered in the news belongs in WP. I think this article is clearly one of those instances but I'm only one voice, so let's let consensus decide, ok? Atsme📞📧 18:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 18:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 18:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion is not applicable for not giving credit or for this kind of copying. Will be adding the proper credit to the talk page. Please read WP:NPOV again. I point to the first sentence: all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. If there are significant views that the pardon was xyz we include that. Also considering this was taken straight from the Joe Arpaio article, I assume this has already been atleast somewhat hashed out there. Galobtter (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which also includes arguments for why it isn't.😁 Atsme📞📧 19:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the "only news media" nature of the event - here's an article in a journal that has some analysis on the pardon and its ramifications and how it crosses a line. The article already has a lot of legal analysis and what not that cannot really fit and would be (and is) mostly irrelevant for the Joe Arpaio article. Galobtter (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vehement (and Adamant) Keep. Is the nominator possibly as uninformed as his comment makes him appear? This is a "newsy" event? Are you joking? "Aside from that, it's nothing more than a "newsy" event,"- This comment reveals nothing about the world but your own ignorance of it. Many of America's most respected legal scholars have stated that the Arpaio pardon provokes major constitutional questions due to 1) the pardoning of a close Trump associate and supporter; 2) the unprecedented pardon prior to sentencing, without expression of remorse or partial service of the sentence; 3) due to the fact that Arpaio's crimes were themselves in violation of the constitution. I could cite for you literally well over 1,000 articles written by legal academics on this issue, which is far from over- there will be legal battles over this pardon for years. If you'd like to insert your foot deeper into your mouth, please be my guest. I'll note as well that we have Bill Clinton pardon controversy and an article on every other President's pardons, and this is surely the most controversial and notable pardon since Pardon of Richard Nixon. There is no reason for this material to be buried in the swamp of Joe Arpaio article. We do cover notable legal events here, do we not? No one says "No reason to have an article on O.J. Simpson murder trial, when that can just go in O.J. Simpson," do they? I honestly am struggling to see how this nomination could have been made in good faith; the arguments are, frankly speaking, embarrassing. Infamia (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC) Striking out !vote as the user has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. SkyWarrior 16:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Extended content
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]
  • Merge into Joe Arpaio. This doesn't need a standalone article. This is exactly notable enough for a section of an article. It can be adequately covered there without spinning it off. While it's possible that more information will come in the future, wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and the forcing of as many sources as possible into the text is a large part of what makes me suspect that this is a one-sided article by someone with an agenda trying desperately to make it stand. Perhaps if it were more NPOV, I would believe that this is actually notable enough that it could eventually become a thorough and well-balanced article. Natureium (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD has turned into a discussion of things only tangentially related. Natureium (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Psst, Natureium, can't merge into the main article as this article is 96% of what's already in the pardon section at Joe Arpaio, the latter of which needs a major edit reduction to comply with NOTNEWS, UNDUE, SOAPBOX, and eliminate all the trivial speculation and editorializing. My thoughts are to eliminate this article, and substantially trim down the section at the main article. Atsme📞📧 23:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: what sources support your opinion that "This is exactly notable enough for a section of an article."?Infamia (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even ignoring the analyses and extraneous cites - the parts about the hurricane and about charlottesville and the rally where trump heavily implied the pardon would be somewhat much for the Joe Arpaio article. Galobtter (talk) 07:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From the talk page (Talk:Joe Arpaio) there is a good argument for why the article was split in the first place. As Gablotter says "while the pardon is very important, a lot of its importance derives from matters unrelated to Arpaio himself and there shouldn't be so much on it in an article about Joe Arpaio." The article is clearly notable, and I don't think merging is a good idea per Gablotter. Acebulf (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This should be in the Joe Arpaio article. No need for a separate article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Remember, this is not a vote, so please supply a Reason for your view, or your vote will be disregarded. Stating that the article should be deleted because "there is no need for a separate article" isn't a reason. That's simply another way of re-stating your opinion that there is no need for a separate article. Try telling us why. Infamia (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For what reason would you link to the word reason? Are you trying to imply that if someone doesn't supply a reason that you find sufficient, they must not know the definition of "reason"? Natureium (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My linking to reason was what's called a joke. Do you know about those, too? Notwithstanding all attempts at humour, the point stands: stating something "should be deleted because it should be deleted" doesn't count as giving a reason. It's merely re-stating the preference. I was trying to elicit why they felt the pardon is not notable, given the abundance of sources saying otherwise. Infamia (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure Snoogans can defend himself (or herself) just fine, but your reason given is really reaching. No one on this page said "should be deleted because it should be deleted". The person you replied to said "This should be in the Joe Arpaio article. No need for a separate article." I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I'm pretty sure they are saying that it doesn't need an article because it can be appropriately covered in the existing article. That's a reason. Natureium (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I do believe it is you who are reaching. The question is WHY you believe this is this not notable to be covered in its own article, or WHY you believe this is this insignificant enough to only merit discussion in Arpaio's article. On this score, neither you or Snoogs have supplied an answer. You've merely re-stated what was obvious merely in your votes to delete: that you think the topic does not merit its own article. I'm seeking enlightenment as to why you think this, or whether there are any sources supporting your view that this is merely a news item of passing interest, notwithstanding the fact that it still continues to be extensively written about, and notwithstanding the fact that the ongoing legal challenges and constitutional crisis continue to develop. Infamia (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean redirect to Joe Arpaio#Trump Presidential Pardon. Galobtter (talk) 03:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC) Also Wikipedia:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Galobtter (talk) 04:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The Arpaio article is already too long. Shortening the case and pardon sections in the main article and allowing this one to exist is a better solution. Rhadow (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At first sight of the AfD, I thought a merge would be sufficient, but on further review I found that, as Acebulf says above, the article legitimately goes beyond Arpaio's biography to other content, and a separate article makes sense. It is not inherently an "attack" page in the Wikipedia sense but an effort to cover a subject of controversy and lasting significance; if there is an imbalance in the summary of content from reliable sources, it can be improved via the normal editorial processes. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (obviously) Like I was saying in the link above, there's a lot of legal analyses, criticisms by senators and scholars, how "issuing this pardon would be an impeachable offence" that is pretty irrelevant and undue for the Joe Arpaio article. Essentially most of the reaction section is way too much for an article on Joe Arpaio. But the pardon is still important, and still received a lot of coverage. So this is a simple WP:SPINOFF. Galobtter (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per above. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 03:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article needs work, but the subject is independently notable, and there are enough reliable sources on it to pass our inclusion criteria. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 04:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder to editors that this article is already a section in Joe Arpaio, and we don't need two. When the information in that article is chiseled down to contain only the information that is relevant to the pardon itself, and now that I've removed much of the noncompliant statements and character assassination style opinions by detractors, (which will also be done at the main article), we can eliminate one, preferably this one because it doesn't warrant being a standalone. Please keep that in mind. Atsme📞📧 06:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
noncompliant statements and character assassination Could you give me examples of that? As far as I can see, most of the statements are about the legality and wiseness of the pardon and possible effects of it, and are all sourced and given due weight (most RS, including journals etc, reported statements that were essentially against the pardon thus that has to be represented). My proposal was and is to keep this with all the analyses and significantly shorten the section in Joe Arpaio to mostly talk about how the pardon relates to him and not stuff about Trump etc. Galobtter (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC) Ah I see you've removed it now. Not sure how sourced legal analyses from respected legal scholars and describing the pardon as being troubling is a BLP issue... Galobtter (talk) 06:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, I don't think you really understand what this article is about. It isn't about Arpaio. The personalities of the individuals involved is not relevant to legal analysis. I have no clue what you are possibly reading that you think this is "character assassination." this is precisely WHY there needs to be two separate articles; the issue of Joe Arpaio's "character" has no relevance here. Can you do us a favor and read some of the sources before you go on a deleting rampage again? You might then actually have an idea what this article is supposed to be about. Hint: it's not Joe Arpaio, so we don't really care about "assassinating" his character. Spare us the melodrama. Infamia (talk) 07:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think she might be complaining about how the criticism of the wiseness of the pardon is "assassinating" Trump's character. Galobtter (talk) 07:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That makes somewhat more sense (though I'd still find it strange to think the criticism involves Trump's character, rather than the constitutionality of the pardon), but I would find it easier to see what was being objected to, if nearly the entire page was not deleted at once. As I've also said elsewhere, regardless of the merits of the deletions, I don't think it's appropriate to delete large sections composing more than half of the article while a deletion discussion is going on, since it effectively makes this discussion impossible and bars anyone else from contributing their opinion. I would assume "don't blank the page" would reasonably also entail "don't delete 2/3 of the page" as well, but perhaps someone else would know better than I about that. Infamia (talk) 07:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I did put a note below so that people know that the large portions of the article have been removed and can at least check the previous version. Galobtter (talk) 07:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly consider Analyses and Ramifications NPOV, much less worthy of inclusion considering WP's requirements for medical opinions to meet the requirements of MEDRS, not what some armchair "experts" and journalists think based on their political opinions. Atsme📞📧 16:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What..What does MEDRS have to do with this? Also are you saying law professors are not experts in law? That's incorrect literally by definition. Galóbtóró (talkó tuó mió) 17:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your inability to see it is what makes me say what? confused face icon Just curious...Galobtter, weren't you the one who originally made this article a redirect to Joe Arpaio and the now blocked sock reverted you? We can discuss the details of the NPOV issues on the article TP, but for quick clarification here: Experts also said that the pardon sent a permissive signal to people in law enforcement to commit unlawful acts. Permissive signal to commit unlawful acts? What is that supposed to mean? That law enforcement is mentally incapable of determining what is and isn't unlawful, and that they should just admit that what the detractors/opposition says about the pardon is the way it is? There's also this: Several experts on authoritarianism described the pardon as illiberal... Experts making a diagnosis of "authoritarianism" - that's illiberal which means it restricts "thought"? Again, mental analysis. You can call it legal but that doesn't make it so. Keeping in mind "there is nothing in the text of the Constitution’s pardons clause to suggest that he exceeded his authority" so what is all the "expert" analysis about - it certainly isn't just about legal issues based on how some of it is written, not to mention UNDUE. To the TP if you want to discuss it further. Atsme📞📧 19:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Galobtter. There is no biomedical information in the article. It's just bizarre to suggest that the article doesn't meet the requirements of MEDRS. Such comments completely undermine the credibility of your arguments.- MrX 21:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is your prerogative but it's still a form of psychoanalysis which makes it WP:FRINGE and as such, it effects WEIGHT. Laws are written - this article provides verifiable written opinions while giving little weight to statements of fact. We can quote opinions as long as we exercise caution as to what those opinions are saying about a BLP and how much weight we give those opinions and whether or not the RS is free of potential COI. Like the section title reads, it's speculation which means it is not evidence-based. The editorializing has taken the article to a new level of noncompliance. Atsme📞📧 22:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are we talking about the same article? Natureium (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
😀 Yes, with the section titles: Speculation and Background and Analyses and Ramifications - WP is now speculating and analyzing based on allegations and opinions of detractors, making the article UNDUE rather than presenting balance per NPOV and sticking to proven facts in a dispassionate tone per PAGs. Atsme📞📧 14:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not engaging in any sort of speculation. That's utterly and completely false. The "speculation" refers to the fact that people were predicting - and he himself was saying that he might do it - that he would do it weeks before he did it. That heading should probably be changed to just "Background"- I was just quickly splitting the sections and creating headings for them. (maybe read the article a little closer) Reporting the analysis of legal scholars - whatever it is, positive or negative - is not "allegations and opinions of detractors". Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 15:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It never hurts to refresh our memories regarding policies, in particular WP:PUBLICFIGURE. I read the article, and whether or not you call it "speculation" or "prediction", they are both noncompliant as written and sourced. If you want to use "prediction", then read WP:CRYSTALBALL. We don't predict the future, and we only use inline text attribution when a source we're citing is questionable, has a COI, or bias against the subject, which is exactly what we're seeing in some of the sources used here and at Joe Arpaio. As an AfC reviewer, you are aware of our PAGs and your good work there supports it. I'm not quite sure why it's not extending to this article as it did in the beginning prior to the sock being blocked. Atsme📞📧 16:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, please could you explain why you are revert warring over whether this article has been reviewed or not. Why do you keep unreviewing it, particularly as this discussion continues. Is this action related to your not being allowed to strip the article of stuff you don't like while this discussion is going on? It would also be nice if you would stop bludgeoning this discussion with your own interesting interpretations of policy. This behaviour is still pathetic. I do find it amusing that the struck comments by the sock in this discussion demonstrate a better knowledge of policy than your own. -Roxy the dog. barcus 17:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Roxy the dog: She did it by mistake - see User_talk:Arthistorian1977#I_have_unreviewed_a_page_you_curated_9. She unreviewed it once - hardly "why do you keep unreviewing it". There's no need to immediately jump to the bad faith conclusion. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 17:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pardon_of_Joe_Arpaio_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1074864523"