Talk:Rodney Reed

Why was "Other sexual assault allegations" deleted?

Seemed fair. It was all sourced material. Not sure why such a large helpful chunk of the article was deleted. 2601:645:C000:AE10:45F1:29C8:1125:16AC (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC) Since there has been no explanation weeks later, I will add it back. 2601:645:C000:AE10:4C48:A150:9588:EC1B (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

This content is already being discussed in the section above, as well as on the BLP noticeboard, as per the talk page header. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Blatant liberal censorship. The celebrity endorsements did this, not an abstract interpretation of wikipedia's rules. If you were being impartial you would delete the section on celebrity endorsements as well but we all know you won't do that despite the same logic applying of how it violated BLP 2601:645:C000:AE10:90B9:FFCF:146A:1664 (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Please review WP:AGF. How would celebrity endorsements violate WP:BLPCRIME? I see no criminal accusations in that section at all. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Just strange why Wikipedia would support choosing to omit objective information. So forgive the WP:AGF discourtesy, but in a situation where the two choices are A) Have information about a person relevant to their ongoing case and B) Not have that information, I figured an encyclopedia would have gone with A. Has an admin reviewed this decision? 2601:645:C000:AE10:54D1:3927:CCB5:791C (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has certain policies that govern how it operates, but those are based on community consensus, not any administrative authority. As per WP:BLP, Wikipedia generally has higher standards for content about living people. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Who dictates what the community census is, then? Surely somebody. Or was there a vote I am not aware of? Seems like others have made the same point I have in this talk page only for them to be silenced with the WP:BLP excuse as reason enough. I am just unclear on how you know the community agreed to not include that information rather than some final authority saying "No it's not allowed" which was what my impression has been thus far. 2601:645:C000:AE10:8D10:5733:87B0:F957 (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Consensus is discussion-based rather than a vote as per WP:CONSENSUS. However, consensus on individual articles cannot override certain community policies, such as BLP. If you look through the talkpage here, you will see that there are previous discussions about this topic, as well as archived discussion and an ongoing discussion at a noticeboard. – wallyfromdilbert (talk)

Oh okay I'm sorry I was just confused because you seemed to have contradicted what you said earlier. So then I ask my question again, has an admin reviewed the interpretation of the WP:BLP rule on this page? Because I disagree with it and it seems many other users have as well. 2601:645:C000:AE10:11DD:D2E3:D836:2174 (talk) 08:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Admins do not review any interpretations of policy. That's simply not how things work. Also, there is nothing to review anyway. No one has really offered any explanation as to how the usage of court transcripts as the sole source for that material is justified under BLPPRIMARY. Nil Einne (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, let me ask another question then. What kind of source(s) would I need to use to illustrate that the person in question has a long history of sexual assault/rape charges? Simply put, I think that's an essential piece of information and omitting that could be misleading 2601:645:C000:AE10:F42E:2A36:FD6E:F0EB (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The addition was completely unacceptable per WP:BLPPRIMARY. The only source was court records which cannot be used like that for BLPs. Any editor who adds such BLP violations again may be blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

No argument about the section sourced only to primary sources being removed. But I am somewhat perplexed by the absence of any mention around his first arrest and the 1987 Wichita Falls case. It's not just well-covered in secondary sources (including the very second source used in this article to source the information about Reed's early life), but the sources explicitly link that earlier case to decisions that were made in the 1996 case. I'm having difficulty seeing how that can be argued as a BLP violation. Grandpallama (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I see this is at BLPN, so maybe I'll put my thoughts there, but I see others have already made what would be my core point (that the 1987 case, at least, should be included as a component of the 1996 case, and that it is covered by numerous secondary sources). Unclear as to why people keep wanting to rely on primary sourcing for this. Grandpallama (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Including information about a previous charge that is connected to his conviction by multiple secondary sources would probably be appropriate. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Mr. IP and Grandpallama. What kind of source is required to mention his long history of sexual assault charges? Do we need an article about the court records? Court records alone don't suffice, has to have a journalist talk about it first? The only issue I see here is that people will come here and become misinformed by supporting someone without knowing about their history first (in which case they would be more informed, could change their decision) Test123Bug (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a valid source that explains why he is being charged for capital punishment, which is his criminal history in assaulting women. Hope that's appropriate. if not, tell me why please and what sort of source is required to illustrate his prior charges. Test123Bug (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Rodney Reed is human garbage he raped other women besides the one he murdered, and he stalked and raped a 12 year old girl, the information about his other rapes should be included in the article. 100.34.234.175 (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Golden Gloves information is made up

it is referenced from a news article, which in turn is pulled from an Innocence Project site.

Meanwhile people who have researched this have found no trace of his participation in the Golden Gloves organization. I believe that there is testimony from a coach who did work with Rodney. Iirc, he specifically said that Reed did not have the focus or determination to be such a contender.

It was not jailtime that kept Reed from the Golden Gloves, he was not that caliber of boxer. Patrickkquinn (talk) 14:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)