Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blanket clemency
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 --JForget 23:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Blanket clemency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
catchphrase used in media discussion of a single event, not a recognized or standard legal/political term. Not much more than an (inaccurate, mostly) attempt at a dictionary definition. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete doesn't even belong in a dictionary, let alone an encyclopedia. -PetraSchelm (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a valid deletion reason. Please provide some policy based criteria for your deletion reason, perhaps one that's actually factually accurate this time. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Much more than a media catchphrase, the term is used in several books on the death penalty, and has been used in contexts other than the Ryan's clemency, e.g. [1] [2] [3]. A merge to Clemency would be possible, except it redirects to Pardon, which is a different concept. Jfire (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep There is barely mention of it outside the Illinois governor thing, but there is a little. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable legal term. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A Google search shows fewer than 2500 hits on this term, nearly 90% of which refer to Ryan's mass commutation of death sentences in Illinois, and are mostly from news accounts. Of the remaining 300 or so, virtually none of which are from legal sources (and show no consistent meaning). Could you provide some citations from legal sources for this rather strange assertion? Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC) April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. According to Westlaw:
- Simpson v. Battaglia, 458 F.3d 585, (Ill.), August 11, 2006
- Henderson v. Briley, 54 F.3d 907, C.A.7, January 16, 2004
- Ballard v. Pierce, Slip Copy, 2006 WL 1980195, N.D.Ill., July 11, 2006 (NO. 06 C 711)
- Ballard v. Pierce, Slip Copy, 2006 WL 1519580, N.D.Ill., May 30, 2006 (NO. 06 C 711)
⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 21:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See also 56 Stan. L. Rev. 1307 ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 21:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See also
- People v. Morris, 219 Ill.2d 373, 848 N.E.2d 1000, 302 Ill.Dec. 436, Ill., April 20, 2006
- People v. Mata, 353 Ill.App.3d 784, 819 N.E.2d 1261, 289 Ill.Dec. 461, Ill.App. 2 Dist., December 09, 2004
- People v. Collins, 351 Ill.App.3d 959, 815 N.E.2d 860, 287 Ill.Dec. 216, Ill.App. 1 Dist., August 25, 2004
- People ex rel. Madigan v. Snyder, 208 Ill.2d 457, 804 N.E.2d 546, 281 Ill.Dec. 581, Ill., January 23, 2004 ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 21:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Rissley, 795 N.E.2d 174 (I don't have a pinpoint cite for it, but the court cites it in Mata ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 21:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing you cite provides any policy-based justification for retaining the term. The court cases you cite mostly quote Ryan's statement in passing in dismissing death sentence appeals as moot after Ryan commuted the sentences (and one. Rissley, of them apparently isn't about blanket clemency at all, but about a killer who strangled his victim with the cord from an electric blanket.) None of the cases define, analyze, apply, or otherwise handle the term substantively. Ryan was, after all, a pharmacist, not a lawyer; a relatively small number of references in lay source to a laymam's comment, do not demonstrate the existence of a standard legal term. There are, after all, no genuinely independent secondary sources here, simply direct and indirect quotations of a single text. That hardly meets WP:N's requirement that the content of an article be supported by multiple independent sources -- a standard this article quite clearly fails. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The court likely does not define the term because it's so common sense that they feel they shouldn't have to. Regardless, even if the references are quoting Ryan's statement or discussing Ryan, that's still independent legal usage.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 13:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ryan: as pharmacist, non-lawyer, governor is non-issue. Did he even coin the term? Master Redyva ♠ 20:38, April 10, 2008 (UTC)
- The court likely does not define the term because it's so common sense that they feel they shouldn't have to. Regardless, even if the references are quoting Ryan's statement or discussing Ryan, that's still independent legal usage.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 13:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing you cite provides any policy-based justification for retaining the term. The court cases you cite mostly quote Ryan's statement in passing in dismissing death sentence appeals as moot after Ryan commuted the sentences (and one. Rissley, of them apparently isn't about blanket clemency at all, but about a killer who strangled his victim with the cord from an electric blanket.) None of the cases define, analyze, apply, or otherwise handle the term substantively. Ryan was, after all, a pharmacist, not a lawyer; a relatively small number of references in lay source to a laymam's comment, do not demonstrate the existence of a standard legal term. There are, after all, no genuinely independent secondary sources here, simply direct and indirect quotations of a single text. That hardly meets WP:N's requirement that the content of an article be supported by multiple independent sources -- a standard this article quite clearly fails. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep although I think I would prefer an encyclopedic article on clemency overall. --Dhartung | Talk 21:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. SwatJester has shown, and backed up with references, that this is a valid legal term. The article is barely a stub, but even paper encyclopedias have plenty of articles which we would call stubs. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Not only a notable legal term but set a new precedent in dealing with a major legal issue, the death penalty. I also strongly agree with all previous votes to keep. Master Redyva ♠
- Delete, of course. The article has no sources for its actual content, represents original research, is a dictionary definition of a neologism, and so on, and on. I'm sure it will be kept, of course, because Wikipedia policy falls in the face of cluelessly belligerent insistence. As I've told you, "Minos," trying to clean up the Augeian stable of Wikipedia's law-related nonsense will prove a waste of your time. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's not very helpful. As it is, I have provided sources above. Perhaps being more helpful and civil might make your stay here less frustrating. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 13:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You have provided no sources for the article's content. You have provided citations to opinions which use the phrase, but as you admitted above, nothing in those opinions supports the "definition" in the article, which on its face contains one gross legal error independent of the definition. Your repeated hectoring of those who disagree with you makes me doubt you have even a rudimentary understanding of the genuine meaning of civility (as did your misbehavior with regard to friends of mine at Making Light. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 01:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote to Keep per Jfire, SWATJester & Westlaw. La-Leg Lawyer (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Yesterday's neologisms, like yesterday's jargon, are often today's essential vocabulary."
– Academic Instincts, 2001 (http://www.wordspy.com/waw/garber-marjorie.asp) ♦ La-Leg Lawyer (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Note: "La-Leg Lawyer" is actually 66.162.207.31 (talk · contribs). The Enchantress Of Florence had previously struck the comments, but I think they should stand. Just be aware that it's not a named account. Jfire (talk) 01:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on Westlaw. I also like the Academic Instincts quote. SameDayService (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the entry defines a legal term that appears to make sense. Chimeric Glider (talk) 03:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. "Appearing to make sense" is a very different standard that verifiability, and would allow the inclusion of much inaccurate material. Not one of the "keep" voters has managed to find a verifiable source for the content of the article. There are many more references in case law to John Dioguardi's "tonics" than to this inchoate phrase, but that hardly makes "tonics" a recognized legal term. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Master Redyva wonders if a catergory change would pacify Minos. A change from Legal term to Informal legal term, including Blanket clemency with Heckler's veto, Kangaroo court & Chinese wall. Blanket Clemency, not only makes sense but is verfifiable as well as notable. Master Redyva thinks a catergory change makes more sense than deleting the article in total. Master Redyva ♠ 15:28, April 14, 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. "Appearing to make sense" is a very different standard that verifiability, and would allow the inclusion of much inaccurate material. Not one of the "keep" voters has managed to find a verifiable source for the content of the article. There are many more references in case law to John Dioguardi's "tonics" than to this inchoate phrase, but that hardly makes "tonics" a recognized legal term. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.