Talk:Carlos Vignali

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

was hugh rodham this guy's lawyer?

[edit] The Unpardonable Disparities link

I will just just weight in and say that the link should stay - Carlos Vignali is notable because of the attention given to the pardons, and the link discusses the attention given to the pardons. Disclaimer: I added the link in the first place. Thue | talk 19:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree the article has good information about Vignali. Maybe the text alongside the article should be changed to actually talk about Vignali rather than what appears to be a POV statment regarding Clinton/Bush? Link stays - description changes? All in favor say "I"? Dubc0724 20:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The description is a paraphrased quote of an opinion - I believe we don't have strict NPOV rules when quoting. The description simply says what is in the linked article. I think the current description should be kept because the issue described is related to Vignali's notability. Thue | talk 20:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You guys can certainly leave it, but it just seems like an irrelevant and NPOV quote (paraphrased or not). I still agree the link is okay, but the description in the article sticks out like a sore thumb, and looks like a weird attempt to defend Clinton's pardon. Dubc0724 15:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Nothing in the linked article or in the summary makes any attempt to defend Clintons pardon. I don't really see how you get that idea. Thue | talk 16:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure it was. It was saying Clinton's pardons were no worse than Bush's. Maybe true, but not relevant to the Vignali article. Dubc0724 17:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That A is no worse than B does not make A all right. At least in my book. Anyway, the reason why I think the link+description should stay is that it highlights the fact that this level of scrutiny is a new thing. That it happens to illustrate this by summarising a comparison between the two specific presidents is an unintended (and harmless) consequence. Thue | talk 20:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI, a commutation should not be confused with a pardon. Vignali had his sentence commuted, but he is still considered a convicted felon. Yes, Hugh Rodham was his lawyer. The family paid Mr. Rodham $200,000 for the representation, and he returned the fee to the family after the commutation caused such a stir.