Talk:Linda R. Reade

Section on Rubashkin trial

This section is getting to be too prominent here. Anyone who wants to write about the Rubashkin trial is advised to work on Sholom Rubashkin. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Now under discussion here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Shortened it and fixed BLP and style issues Lower458 (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Still fails BLP; see my response to your post on my talk page. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you please FIX instead of deleting? You seem to know the rules better Lower458 (talk) 00:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Question: Justice Reade's involvement in the Agriprocessors raid and the Rubashkin trial is something which was covered in many credible publications [one two three four five ] - This story is of great importance and interest to the Orthodox Jewish community, who claim that Mr. Rubashkin was treated unfairly and harshly by Justice Reade. I feel it belongs on her page. How would I structure an edit without violating BLP etc. Lower458 (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the key issue here would be to write a section on her rulings more generally, so that a discussion of Rubashkin did not falsely convey the impression that this is the only significant issue on which she has ever issued a ruling. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Will try that soon, thanks Lower458 (talk) 04:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the Rubashkin case is a major (the major?) part of her WP:NOTABILITY. I propose restoring the 'Controversy' paragraph which seemed to include a few well-sourced lines from major press accounts dealing with the case. Winchester2313 (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Rubashkin Case

Judge Reade's Ruling on the Rubashkin case which was a nationally high profile case should get more "coverage" on her biography page. From beginning, the case startled the Jewish communities,[1][2][3] attracted national headlines and eventually created documentaries on the US justice system.[4]

There were three main points expressed in the sources about Judge Reade: 1-Judge Reade's undisclosed 10 month involvement with prosecuters prior to trial. (We may never find out what was really discussed).

2- Judge Reade's lengthy 27 year sentence which exceeded prosecutors 25 year request (for a first time non violent crime).

3- The initial denial of bail (in part) on the basis that Rubashkin is "Jewish" and thus he is a flight risk to Israel.[5]

Numerous Jewish groups claimed "Rubashkin’s prosecution was a product of anti-Semitism seem knee-jerk and unfounded."[6]

[Furthermore how Rubashkin was singled out, as the documentation video points out, that virtually every single citizen could be convicted for life for "counts of fraud". This is in addition to the data obtained by the senior Fed supervisor revealing that "by 2006, 40% of all mortgage loans originated that year were liar’s loans".[7] Until today many (or perhaps most) farms rely on illegal immigrants for their workforce. [8]]

I agree with previous users, and I think we should add additional to the article.Caseeart(talk) 08:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

There's no way this article is turning into a jeremiad against Reade. Perhaps it would make sense to write about the Postville case in context of writing about other cases she has decided. If that isn't possible or desirable, then perhaps another sentence about the Rubashkin case would work. But you can see in the history the kind of thing that's been tried (and rejected) in the past. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Obviously not to take over the article. However I think would be more than 1 line since this is not only about the Rubashkin case. We could focus on the responses her ruling received from high profile politicians and the and from active congress. To keep the article neutral - could include that 8th circuit Appeals held up the ruling.

Do you know of other cases she presided on that made it to the news?

In addition, it is common by Judges that their High Profile cases are included in their biography, especially those that made national headlines and became controversial. Take a look at the articles of these Judges where their 2-3 high profile cases dominate their articles: John Byrne (judge), Shira Scheindlin and James D. Whittemore. Caseeart (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The article on Scheindlin is a really good example -- because it gives brief overviews of a range of cases. It's a useful contrast with the article on Byrne, which is exactly the sort of thing to avoid, with a long and detailed treatment of a single case. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok the case should be listed briefly unlike Byrne. However it bears more weight than most of the cases of Shira Scheindlin for 3 reasons:

• Being a Judge in a more rural area than NYC with less high profile cases - gives more WP:WEIGHT to the 1-2 big cases she did judge.
• This case did gain national attention specifically on *her* conduct (meeting with prosecutors).
• The main reason that this specific case has much WP:WEIGHT in her biography article is not about the case. Rather the its about the 86 AG and 40 Congress who discussed her involvement. Anyone (Judge or not) getting such high profile attention should have it in their biography.

Here is a proposal:

We could leave out case details, lawyers, details about Rubashkin, claims of anti Semitism, etc.

Instead we could write a few lines briefing the basic case, the ruling and controversy, and we point out that it was upheld by both the appeals and the supreme court. We could then mention a few lines of the 86 Attorney Generals, 40 Congress and possibly mention the 52,000 online signatures. (Much of this all occurred after last discussion). Caseeart (talk) 04:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

All of that material is already (or could be) in the article on Postville Raid. We can link to that article and note the hullabaloo that the case attracted. But I see no reason to write about the case in some of the respects you indicate when those respects are not directly about Reade herself. I'm also not persuaded by your assertion re the contrast with Scheindlin. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Postville Raid is only a small detail of all the responses from the Congress and Attorney Generals.
• As per your assertion - I just added this as a very short "notable case" (Compared to other Judges pages) rather than a controversial case. I think this should be much more at length do to the response it attracted. We could discuss further how to lengthen this.
• The focus of the edit was Judge Reads actions and the responses it received.
• I noticed that despite that there was edit warring - the users Lower458, Winchester2313, Thetruthwillsetyoufreetoday, Iphone4r, Truthandjusticeforeveryone, KerAvelt and others hold that this case should be added.
• We could discuss and details and changes here.Caseeart (talk) 05:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

There are numerous problems with what you've added. The section heading was "notable cases", yet you added only re the single case. You wrote in Wikipedia's voice about Reade's "misconduct", as if it were obvious to all that Reade had committed misconduct. There were typos/misspellings. Really, I'm surprised that you went ahead with this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• I will address your concerns. You are right about the 52,000 signatures to the white house - although it is verifiable - since it is a primary source - we should avoid using terms like "misconduct". I will also change it to "Notable Case" (Although that I still believe that the section should be called "Notable Cases" since it is a section dedicated for notable cases - but we could change the name later.)
• Let us address ALL the points I brought in this discussion (also in my previous comments) so that we could discuss further.
• I would much rather you edit the text I am bringing rather than simply removing everything.
• I did not understand everything you wrote in the edit summery. For example WP:UNDUE states "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". Most of the viewpoints brought were from the NYT and Huffington Post. Let us go after the "published reliable sources". Also I thought we reached some kind of consensus.Caseeart (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The point is to write a section about notable cases. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• I did find another notable Reade case - but not nearly as notable as the Rubashkin case. The case did not make national attention, and did not receive responses from 150 prominent politicians. It won't give the correct WP:WEIGHT to include that near the Rubashkin case.
• There are many politicians/scientists that are known mainly for one single major event. Look at Ethan Couch (a white rich 16 year old who while being drunk and speeding - killed 4 and injured 11. Ethan was sentenced to probation but no prison time. That judge was accused of racism). that I am recently editing - Ethan is notable for one single event since this event spurred national attention.
• I am returning the material as a second revert. We don't need to instantly remove this without reading and responding to all the previous inquiries. Why not spend some more time on this and go into the details rather than simply removing and placing a short comment on the talk page? You could leave it, and we could happily work together adding other cases to address your concern that this case should not be the only dominant factor of Reade's biography article.Caseeart (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

If you really think she's notable for only the Rubashkin case, then we might have to nominate this article for deletion per WP:BLP1E. I would also suggest that you not say silly things e.g. I have not read previous inquiries. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Many of the listed involved editors were SPAs that haven't edited in years. This was an issue 4-5 years ago, but it's been out of the news for years. All appeals were exhausted years ago. Is there a PR push again, or what? --John Nagle (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Linda Reade is notable for being a federal judge. That in itself is enough to have a Wikipedia article. Her first and most known case where she became nationally known was her handling the Rubashkin case. The Rubashkin case itself is more than one incident. For example a well known scientist that is primarily know for one invention.
• In response that you want to add more cases along with the Rubashkin case- I believe that it is not necessary since this was her main notable big case. However as I said I am happy to work on the article and try to figure out if there is a way to add other cases - Let us however begin with THIS case and see if/how to build others.
• Check if this recent was a good start.
• Excuse me for saying that you were not reading my inquiries. I meant to say that you are ignoring much of them.
• To John Nagle: Yes this was out of the news for 4-5 years. Rubashkin is "rotting" in prison and that is not likely to change. Now that we are done with all the "breaking news" and he is convicted - let us take a fair BLP approach to the parties involved. I don't know of any recent PR push. The last one I saw in the sources was a white house petition a few years ago. However I noticed your history of only negative comments and edits on the Rubashkin article, as I mentioned on SeanHoylands page. (As I noted on my User page - that I was using "bordguy" when I was temporarily using on a different computer and did not have my password but I no longer have access to that name)-I will discuss that with you on the Rubashkin talk page.Caseeart (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

To keep this page in compliance with both WP:BALANCE and WP:NPOV, the structure should fairly reflect all relevant factors contributing to a subjects WP:NOTABILITY. It is clear that the Rubashkin case is the most significant factor to date in Linda Reade's career, as amply evidenced by the voluminous media coverage and widespread judicial scrutiny Reade's conduct of the trial generated. The recently renewed attention to this case nationwide following President Trump's commutation clearly necessitates the inclusion of this event as well. Obviously, this is not the only case in her history, and other significant decisions should be included in this section as well. I've only found a few that seem to qualify, but would appreciate any other editors adding notable decisions or cases to this section. Winchester2313 (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The Rubashkin case is obviously the most notable event in Judge Reade's career, as evidenced by simply typing her name into google and looking at the first page. The fact that the commutation and accompanying statement from the White House made clear reference to the extremity of the sentence significantly adds to the [[WP:NOTABILITY) of this case in Reade's career. I also note that reading through this talk page, other editors have made the same case earlier, yet Nomoskedasticity seems determined to go to WP:WAR over this and simply remove properly sourced information without seeking WP:CONSENSUS. I intend to restore the information added earlier by another editor barring a consensus here as to why it shouldn't be there.Winchester2313 (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the Rubashkin case might be better here as it's own subsection rather than as one of the 'notable cases' since it's obviously the most notable of any case the judge tried. Most of the info I restored here belongs in the article, though it might benefit from a slight trimming. The sheer volume of press and publicity generated make it by far the most notable event in her career, though other cases that never got that much attention probably don't need to be here. Ben133 (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

There are obviously a lot of editors who don't regularly edit who are highly interested in the Rubashkin case. That said, it's just one of the thousands of criminal trials Reade has presided over and is wildly disproportionately covered in this article. I will be editing this and removing most to almost all of it, but with a link to the main article on the case. Iowalaw2 (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I've restored most of the information arbitrarily deleted by Iowalaw2 for all the reasons cited earlier in this discussion. The Rubashkin case and the long-lasting media storm that it generated make it by far the most WP:NOTABLE case Reade has ever presided over. Please don't remove properly sourced and relevant information arbitrarily again - I don't recall frequency of editing conferring editorial priority anywhere in Wikipedia policy. Winchester2313 (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Judge Reade's notability comes from her office as a federal judge. To my knowledge every Article III federal judge has a Wikipedia article, and most are reasonably detailed. Virtually all federal judges handle sensitive and high-profile cases with some regularity. Readers particularly interested in the Rubashkin case can consult the much more detailed article on the subject, consistent with the purpose of Template:Main. Iowalaw2 (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Most federal judges do not generate a fraction of the controversy and accusations that Reade did with the Rubashkin case. Nor are they accused of impropriety as she was in this case. None that I'm aware of has had two former FBI directors argue for their recusal, 45 members of congress question their handling of a case, and over 100 former DOJ officials expressing concern about their conduct of and during, a trial. AFAIK, most federal judges don't have husbands buying stock in prison companies five days before they order raids either. All of this information is highly relevant and needs to remain as per WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BALANCED. Please do not censor the page just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winchester2313 (talk • contribs)

As per the other responses you have received: the detailed information is available in the locations where it is more directly relevant. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

In addition, it's not true that accusations of impropriety, controversial decisions, or recusal disputes are uncommon in the federal judiciary. The commutation and PR campaign is unusual, but has little to do with this article as opposed to the Rubashkin one, as it largely occurred after Judge Reade's involvement in the case had ended. Iowalaw2 (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Since all the info that certain editors keep deleting is properly sourced and very relevant, I'm restoring it again. The idea that most federal judges have faced the same kind of allegations of improperly interfering in cases or that their husbands made suspiciously timed investments around their ordering a raid is just not true. All this information is directly relevant to Linda Reade and not so much to the Rubashkin case, but anyway there's no reason it shouldn't be here, so I'm restoring it.Ben133 (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Linda R. Reade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101225030406/http://therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=1793 to http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=1793

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Linda R. Reade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110923115959/https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions to https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Aossey

How is Aossey a "notable" case? Does it meet WP:N? Could/should we write an article on it? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure personally if the Aossey case should be on here or not - it's definitely prominent enough judging by the amount of press coverage it picked up. It also meets wp:n in my opinion, the question is how many cases of a judge should be on their page? Maybe needs to be discussed more. Unless the notable angle of this case is that it's the only prominent / known case where Reade departed down from the sentencing guidelines?? Ben133 (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)