Talk:Isaac Toussie

Notability
This seems like the classic WP:BLP1E. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 05:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well Marc Rich and Monica Lewinsky are only famous for one event. This was widely reported. Is Katrina one event? I read the policy and it seems to suggest that if it's a one time issue in passing then it's not worth an article. But this is a notable criminal made exceptionally notable this event. Is there somewhere you think it should be merged to? Bush pardons? ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Unlike Lewinsky, in a year from now, nobody will recognize the name Isaac Toussie. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 10:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources cover this individual in the context of more than one event - his original fraud conviction and mail fraud plea, his on-going class action suit, and the recent pardon controversy. Certainly this has some historical significance - how often does the president revoke a pardon? Since when in Lewinsky-level name recognition the operative standard of notability? — Swpbτ • c 15:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't bring up Lewinsky, CoM used it as a standard. If he received significant coverage when he was actually charged with the fraud, I might agree. But all the coverage he has received has been in the context of the pardon. Being charged with fraud is nothing, it happens every day. Being pardoned is also not a bid deal. Having a pardon revoked is an interesting trivial factoid. but not something that is encyclopedia article worthy. It should be best merged into an article about Presidential pardons. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * He did in fact receive significant coverage when he was originally convicted. I have now added a few such contemporary sources to the article. Being convicted of fraud happens every day, but a fraud case in which 400 families are victimized does not. In light of the additional sources, would you be so kind as to remove the notability tag you placed on the article? — Swpbτ • c 15:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I still don't agree that he has inherent long-term notability that is worthy of an encyclopedia biography, so I'm not going to remove the tag. However, I won't be bothered if you remove the tag since, as of now, I don't have any support for my position. I realize that you've put a lot of work into this well-written article and I understand your frustration with it being tagged.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 16:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I had thought the same until I looked in Factiva and found hundreds of sources across three years (2001-2003) as well as the recent coverage which made world headlines. It seems to have met the requirements to avoid BLP1E. Orderinchaos 03:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Pardon
So, what's the deal? The pardon was or was not revoked? Shouldn't the article make all of this clear? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It does make it clear:

"The action by Mr. Bush to revoke the pardon is considered unprecedented, and it is unclear that the president has the power to withdraw a pardon.[14] However, the Justice Department has stated that the pardon was never official, having never been delivered to the person who requested it, and that Toussie would have no legal ground on which to challenge the withdrawal.[8] It appears that the pardon would have made it possible for Toussie to re-enter the real estate business in New York state, which he would not be able to do as a felon.[15]"


 * The pardon was revoked. — swpb T 12:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * How on earth is that "clear"? That is the very opposite of "clear".  You yourself -- in the above section -- just said that: Bush revoked the pardon, but it is unclear if Bush really even had the power to revoke the pardon.  How is that "clear"?  Yes, he revoked the pardon.  We know that.  But did the revocation stand?  It doesn't matter if he did/did not revoke.  What matters is the effect of the revocation: that is, did it stand or was it ruled impermissible?  If Bush revoked it -- and the revocation was ruled "illegal" -- then the pardon really was not revoked.  So, my initial point stands.  This article is unclear on this point.  And it's an important point.  And it should be made clear.     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Where do you see anything about the revokation being "ruled" illegal, or even being challenged in any official way? You don't, because it wasn't. So, never having been challenged, it obviously stands—he had the power until a court says he didn't. — swpb T 12:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Forget it. You are not following me.  The article is perfect!  And crystal clear!  Great job!  Thanks!    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)