Talk:Rodney Reed/Archive 1

Archive 1

Vandalism

Yesterday I searched online for detailed information on this man and his case. The news reports I found lacked any specifics and focused almost entirely on his "possible innocence." So I pulled up the Wikipedia article and found a very similar pattern. I then looked at older versions of the article and could see that in the past editors had removed large chunks of information about his criminal history and reduced the article to a stub that focused almost entirely on the "controversy" around his conviction. I then added a section on his criminal history. I used what sources I was able to find, though admittedly they weren't the sources I would have liked. I intended to return and continue to adjust the text. Before I could do that, others had vandalized the additions I made. They removed the entire section on his criminal history. I re-added that section and began adding the additional and better sources I had searched for previously. But before I could complete that, other vandals began removing these changes and noting, erroneously, that the sources included didn't support the claims. Rather than fixing those sources, they vandalized again. In a sincere attempt to resolve this issue, I revised the entire criminal history section I wrote with new text drawn from the official Supreme Court ruling on this issue. All of the new paragraphs were sourced to the SCOTUS case and use uncopyrighted public domain language. And yet, the vandals came again. I'm starting to detect a pattern here. There are people that seem to want to hide this man's history. I won't get into their motives, but Wikipedia is not the place for this. Stop vandalizing. If you can't justify your edits, stop making them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:C10:7760:BD66:1DA6:2114:AF7C (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Just because other editors disagree with your viewpoint, and they edit accordingly, does not make them "vandals". That's an unfair allegation. Wikipedia requires citations to reliable and authoritative third-party sources. You admit that you don't have ideal sources. You also seem to want to erode the article's neutral tone. Two good sets of Wikipedia guidelines can be found HERE, regarding verifiability and HERE, regarding the need to maintain a neutral point of view. And in case you want to accuse me of vandalism, let me add that I wasn't the one who reverted your edits. I merely agree with the reversion. Regards, George Custer's Sabre 03:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Importantly, I didn't say "just because other editors disagree." That's your language. You seem to be intentionally misreading my explanation and edits. I said that this article had been reduced to a mere stub by editors that wanted to highlight the "controversy" of Reed's case. I added a section on his "criminal history" since this is a biographic article about a criminal. The vandalism I'm talking about is the removal of that entire section. Are you actually suggesting that removing multiple paragraphs of sourced text describing factual details from this man's life isn't vandalism? I bet if I did that to a random article, that's exactly what I would be accused of.

Listen, this is a hot case right now because this man is about to be executed. Yet, in researching this man and trying to come to a determination of his guilt/innocence on my own, I found only biased articles. If you had read my explanation above, you would have noticed that this was precisely the reason I made the initial edits. I thought there should be at least one place online where readers could find that information easily. Finally, if you're going to suggest that I "seem to want to erode the article's neutral tone," you might consider substantiating that claim with an example or two. You seem to have said something about "unfair allegation[s]" above. Maybe you could look into that. Finally, as for sources, the section in question is currently sourced entirely by the SCOTUS review of his case. That was my sincere attempt to put to bed the accusation that the previous sources weren't credible. But, to be clear, the editor that removed the entire section was 100% wrong in suggesting that those previous sources didn't support the article as written. If you had actually looked into that, you'd see. Alas, . . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:c10:7760:d470:9613:fcbe:e453 (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is so biased

This article is profoundly biased, and it sounds like it was written by the Texas District Attorney's office. Probably because it uses their allegations as fact. This article needs to be rewritten. It makes no mention of Jimmy Fennell, the numerous pathologists and even the state's forensic experts that all concluded Reed couldn't have committed the crime. Ghoul flesh • talk 05:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear Ghoul flesh, I hope you are well. Go ahead and add it. Just ensure your citations are to reliable and authoritative third-party sources and maintain a neutral point of view. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre 05:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Please do add the section on Jimmy Fennell. I haven't had time to do that. I would also like to add an early life section on his middle-class upbringing and time in high school. The reason I added the section on his long criminal history is because that information wasn't widely known. In fact, it seemed to be intentionally hidden. Every online article and blogpost that discusses this case includes plenty of information about Fennell. You shouldn't have a problem finding sources for those. Unfortunately the same articles never touched the DNA-supported 10-year history of sexual assault by Mr. Reed. Thankfully, Wikipedia now does. You're welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:C10:7760:D470:9613:FCBE:E453 (talk) 13:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

My disappointment is that subsequent edits violate Wikipedia policies on RS, verifiability and neutral tone. Maybe someone who doesn’t want to whitewash OR blame Reed can have a go at turning the desired edits into something that might survive. I don’t have an axe to grind either way, but I don’t want to devote too much time myself. Sorry. George Custer's Sabre 14:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I can't speak to your "disappointment," George Custer's Sabre. I can, however, speak to the edit's I've made. So, since you've again suggested without evidence that my edits violate rules on sourcing, verifiability, and neutral tone, I figured I'd have you actually demonstrate this. Here is one paragraph of my edits that you removed:

"Reed has also been connected by DNA to the rape of a twelve-year-old girl known only as A.W. She claimed that she was home alone and fell asleep on the couch after watching TV. She awoke when someone began pushing her face into the couch and had blindfolded and gagged her. She also reported being repeatedly hit in the head, called vulgar names, and orally, vaginally, and anally raped. The DNA collected from her rape kit conclusively implicated Reed. The case was never brought to trial, as Reed was already being tried for capital murder."

Please point me to the areas where neutrality in tone was abandoned? This description is pulled directly from the Supreme Court ruling that evaluated both sides of his case. And what about the Supreme Court Case source are you suggesting makes it a poor source? Maybe you're new to Wikipedia, but Supreme court cases abound in all types of articles on Wikipedia. Finally, what about this claim do you think gives it verifiability issues? Surely you're not suggesting that the Supreme Court is perpetrating some elaborate hoax built on unverifiable evidence? Right? Make your case. You've accused my edits of having these issues. Well, point them out. I'll be waiting. In the meantime, stop deleting my edits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:c10:7760:c475:edfc:efc9:9487 (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Bulk Deletions

There are several people who have deleted large chunks of text from this article without sufficient explanation. These people are doing this under the guise of "editorial control." Strangely, the effective outcome of each one of these bulk text deletions is to reduce the detailed and well-documented criminal history of this convicted rapist and murderer. The pattern has been the same now for days. I add details about DNA evidence connecting him to multiple sexual assaults (described in reliable sources), and then those details are removed. Hmmm . . . Each time I'm told that I've violated some Wikipedia rule, though that is never described in any detail. This is getting ridiculous. And this pattern of behavior goes back years. Just look at previous versions of this article through the Wayback Machine and you'll see what I'm talking about. Each time somebody adds details about this man's long criminal history of sexual violence that information is removed. If you all don't like reading about sexual assault, then stop going to the page of a man convicted of sexual assault. If you think it's difficult to read about sexual assault, I agree. But that's not the fault of Wikipedia writers. That's on Mr. Reed. Finally, if you disagree with an adjective used or some tone of bias. Then fix it. Currently this article includes the accurate but thoroughly biased and disingenuous assertion that the 1987 case was the only time he was ever charged with sexual assault before Stites. That's true. But it's highly biased because after his DNA was collected he was connected to multiple unsolved cases of rape. He wasn't arrested for those because he was already facing the death penalty. But, even though that statement is clearly biased, nobody is rushing to remove that. I wonder why? I wonder why all this talk about bias doesn't appear to matter when the tone and bias is directed in the right direction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:c10:7760:c475:edfc:efc9:9487 (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Your language makes it obvious that you are impartial to Rodney Reed, and your edits have reflected that. Reed was not prosecuted in any alleged sexual misconduct incidents aside from the murder/rape of Stacey Stites. Not everything prosecutors and police say is reliable, believe it or not. I suggest you read into what Walter McMillian endured around the same time as Rodney Reed. Law enforcement added phony sodomy charges to his case because the case they already had against McMillian held zero water.

This article needs to be neutral. Ghoul flesh • talk 03:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Are you seriously insisting that this article is now "neutral?" Do you know what that word means? This article is a biographical encyclopedia article about a man convicted of rape and murder. Yet, it currently says nothing about his long history of rape and domestic violence. Instead, it focuses on conspiratorial claims that he was somehow framed for the rape and murder. I've tried to make this article fair. And I didn't do that by removing anything about his defense claims. I merely added his long history of well-document sexual violence. That's what you call not being neutral? Disgusting. And it's worse that Wikipedia is allowing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:AE85:B139:FD99:B083:AC3C:E2C4 (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Serious WP:BLP violations

I have removed material from the article that violates WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPPRIMARY. As the article subject is not a public figure, information about alleged crimes that did not result in a conviction should not be included. Please review those policies and carefully review material before restoring it to the article. A discussion about this article is also taking place on WP:BLPN#Rodney Reed. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Your conclusions are inconsistent with the guidelines you cite. Wikipedia describes a public figure as either "a public official or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs, or a limited purpose public figure, those who have 'thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved.'" Rodney Reed, who has volunteered to be on multiple talk shows and encouraged his supporters and lawyers to appear on other shows on his behalf to discuss his case, is clearly in the "limited purpose public figure" arena. I challenge you to convince anyone otherwise. Please read your own links. These deletions should be immediately restored.

Second, there has been a considerable amount of poorly informed talk about what constitutes a usable source for Wikipedia. Several people have insisted that primary sources aren't allowable on Wikipedia. This is false. Wikipedia has no such policy. Rather, what Wikipedia says is that it prefers secondary sources because it doesn't want to be a forum for original research. But this is entirely irrelevant since the SCOTUS source is in fact a secondary source. It is an analysis of the claims made by Reed's defense and the Texas prosecutor's office. That's not a primary source. Whoever keeps making this claim clearly doesn't know what they're talking about. As I already said, these deletions should be immediately restored.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:ae85:b139:fd99:b083:ac3c:e2c4 (talk) 04:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, court records are always treated as primary sources here on wikipedia. This includes appeal court records. Second BLPPRIMARY which was linked above clearly says

Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.

Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.

I had a quick look at the history and this edit [1] re-added content that seemed to be sourced exclusively to court records so was almost definitely inappropriate. (It also made a false accusation of WP:Vandalism which has a specific meaning here on wikipedia which doesn't fit the edits it was describing whether or not these edits were okay. But that's perhaps best dealt with elsewhere.)

This edit I'm not so sure [2], as the content does seem to have other sources. Still there could be a variety of reasons and complexity here. IMO it would be best to start with removing all primary sources including court records. Then once the article has been fleshed out with secondary sources, we can discuss if there is any reason to add them back.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME violations on Jimmy Fennell

The current content about Jimmy Fennell in this article is a clear violation of WP:BLPCRIME. Fennell is not covered by WP:PUBLICFIGURE, yet this article includes claims of Fennell's complicity in a crime for he was not convicted. Multiple allegations of rape against Reed has been completely erased from this article, with WP:BLPCRIME used as justification. This article should either contain criminal allegations against both men, or remove such allegations altogether. Anything else would be hypocracy. 101.108.124.126 (talk) 12:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Great point!! I'm sure Wikipedia editors will get right on it. Don't hold your breath. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:AE85:B139:155:191B:2D0B:7EF9 (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Fennell has not been accused of a crime. Some prisoner stating that he did such and such is not qualify. He has to be accused by authorities and then he is innocent until proven guilty. As regards him being a public figure, each of those citations in that paragraph are held as evidence of his being a public figure. Actually a local paper will from time to time publish something about say a gadfly, then blast that person in an oped, and the hapless person cannot file for libel because they are a public figure. Fennell certainly qualifies.Oldperson (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I fail to see how the information provided in the deleted paragraph that clearly suggests Fennell murdered Stites is not a sign of him being accused of a crime. If you are saying that the accusations need to come from law enforcement to qualify as him being accused, then what standing does the viewpoint of a random prisoner with no authority achieve and why would it be included? WP:BLPCRIME directly states that "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material ... that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured", which is clearly the case for Fennell. CalDoesIt (talk) 02:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with CalDoesIt. There is clearly allegation of a crime, and it is not relevant whether they are "accused by authorities". If anything, having formal charges filed against a person has more reliability and relevance than accusations by random third parties such as a former cellmate. Also, merely being mentioned in a local newspaper does not make someone a public figure. See WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE and WP:LOWPROFILE. Wikipedia's content regarding living persons is held to a high standard, and WP:BLPCRIME is meant to hold accusations of criminal conduct to an even higher bar for inclusion. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Rodney Reed is a public figure and relevant criminal "allegations" against him should therefore be mentioned in this article

In America a limited purpose public figure has been defined as someone who "[has] thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved". The Rodney Reed case has recently been subjected to intense media attention, and his case has aroused the interest of millions of people, including celebrities like Kim Kardashian, Beyoncé and Rihanna, politicians like Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg and even the Ambassador of the European Union to the United States (Stavros Lambrinidis). Reed has thrust himself to the forefront of this controversy by appearing in the media on numerous occasions, such as Dr. Phil. WP:PUBLICFIGURE states that for public figures, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

It was Reed's attempted rape of Linda Schlueter which made him a suspect in this case. It was evidence collected from his previous rapes of Caroline Rivas which ensured that he was charged in this case. His previous rapes of Lucy Eipper, Anglea Weiss and Vivian Harbottle played a significant role in ensuring that Reed received capital punishment. His alleged rape of Connie York also figured prominently during his trial, in which four of his previous victims testified.

Previous rapes committed by Reed are highly relevant to his notability. They are well documented by reliable sources such as CNN and KVUE (NBC). Mentioning them here according to WP:PUBLICFIGURE is therefore appropriate. Concealing this essential information and thereby obfuscating the history of the case is not helpful to Wikipedia.

Although Reed is clearly a public figure, WP:BLPCRIME has earlier been invoked as justification to remove any reference here to earlier rapes by Reed. Note that this policy does not forbid the mentioning of allegations, but rather says that "editors must seriously consider" whether such information should be mentioned or not. WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE applies for such consideration. It states that we must "include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources." Rodney Reed is notable for having been sentenced to capital punishment for the murder of Stacey Stites, and previous allegations of rape against him were instrumental in ensuring that he received this sentence. These allegations are well documented in high-quality secondary sources.

As shown above, Wikipedia policies do not justify the removal of information about Reed's criminal past. These omissions are a disgrace to Wikipedia, and they're being noticed with glee by Wikipedia's critics. 80.211.32.34 (talk) 22:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I came in here looking for this information and was surprised it was not part of his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.15.70 (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The allegations against him for which he was not actually convicted should be included in the article because:

1. Reed is a public figure in the sense that he is not "relatively unknown" (as described by Wikipedia in their standard for inclusion)
2. they are backed by numerous reliable sources - multiple mainstream media outlets talk about the additional charges brought against him
3. they are directly relevant to the case, both because it was the related charges that caused them to suspect Reed in the first place and because they were used against him in sentencing
4. some of these charges are still making their way through the legal system and have not been dismissed.

It is therefore a misinterpretation of WP:BLPCRIME to disallow discussion of the additional charges. They can be mentioned as long as they are said to have been "alleged" crimes.

In my opinion, it is also fair to discuss the defense's allegations that the fiancé did it or that the defense also implicated Lawhon (who was convicted for another similar nearby murder and who witnesses swore in court had confessed to the crime). Perhaps without directly naming the individuals. That information is also clearly relevant to the story because they are the basis of the supposedly exculpatory evidence against Reed, which led to the public outcry.

But this article is being policed by people who have not actually read the story, do not understand that Reed is now a "public figure" (based on his own effort to generate immense media coverage to create a protest to save him), and do not care about creating a well-written, comprehensible article that gives adequate details on the story from both perspectives.

As a major point: it is asinine to disallow details of the additional cases for which he was charged, when it was exactly those cases that led to him being indicted and sentenced to death. Disallowing us to discuss them would be no different than us disallowing us to say that Nicolas Cruz allegedly committed the Parkland Attacks because he hasn't been convicted. It's completely stupid. We can discuss the additional crimes, as long as we say "alleged". Bueller 007 (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Why doesn't this article appear under Category:noindexed_articles?

I've noticed that this page has a noindex html tag and that typically if that is the case it should be populated at category:noindexed_articles. That doesn't seem to be the case. I understand that this article is less than 90 days old, so the noindex is issued by default. But one should still expect to find it there. Am I missing something?

108.7.43.213 (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Presumably the article has not been patrolled. An article is only added to Category:Noindexed articles when it has the NOINDEX template, which this one does not. Bueller 007 (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Important information which could be included in this article

Here are some important source-based facts which could be included in this article:

• A section on the murder of Stites and its subsequent investigation is necessary. These sources are useful.
• Information on the murder of Mary Ann Arldt by David Alan Lawhon is necessary. Reed's defence at one point identified Lawhon as the killer. These sources are helpful.
• Reed became a suspect of the Stites murder after Linda Schlueter identified him as the man who raped her. Intersting information disclosed by CNN include:

• In a statement to CNN, Schlueter said: "Rodney Reed is not innocent at all and all these people that think he's innocent, I'm so sorry, they're so blinded."
• In total, Reed had been implicated in six other sexual assaults, one in which he was charged but acquitted.

• Rodney Reed was charged in the Stites murder on April 4, 1997 This article contains many interesting information, including:

• Reed was already incarcerated in the Bastrop County Jail on a cocaine charge when charged with the Stites murder.
• Reed's semen was already on file after his girlfriend (Caroline Rivas) in 1995 accused him of rape. Prosecution was dropped after the victim refused to cooperate with police. The rape kit of Reed's girlfriend was found to be a match with the rape kit of Stites.
• The police had by the time of Reed's arrest investigated the case for almost a year, questioned hundreds of acquaintances of Stites and investigated hundreds of leads. Stites' former employer offered $50,000 to anyone who could give a lead leading to the solving of the case. None of the hundreds of residents questioned by police had told them of any relationship between Reed and Stites.

• Rodney Reed was indicted in the Stites murder on May 21, 1997, "charged with two counts of capital murder, one for murder in the course of aggravated sexual assault and one for murder in the course of kidnapping"
• Jury selection for the Reed trial begins
• Information on the trial of Rodney Read Interesting information revealed during the coverage of the trial include:

• Reed's defense Lydia Clay-Jackson claimed there had been a secret relationship between Reed and Stites.
• Reed was tried by a "mostly-white jury" with "no blacks".
• Reed's defense suggested that Stites' fiance Jimmy Fennell was the real killer, and that the police had covered for him by not searching him home.
• Reed's defense simultaneously claimed that David Lawhon had confessed to killing Stites.
• Reed's mother and sister testified in the trial that they knew nothing of any relationship between Reed and Stites. Stites' mother added that Fennell and Stites were a happy couple who were deeply in love.
• Jimmy Fennell was an initial suspect in the killing of Stites. He was rigorously questioned by police during the investigation and subjected to a DNA test. He was eventually cleared and testified about his ordeal during the trial of Reed.
• Ranger Sgt. Rocky Wardlow and other officers of the law testified during the trial that they had interviewed hundreds of residents and no-one had informed them about a supposed relationship between Reed and Stites.
• It was revealed that when Reed was initially questioned about the Stites murder, he had made the following statement: "I don't know Stacey Stites - never seen her other than what was on the news. The only thing that I do know is what was said on the news is that she was murdered."
• Travis County Medical Examiner Robert Bayardo testified that he belived Stites had sex shortly before she was killed and had been sodomized after she was strangled.
• During the trial, Reed's defense provided no witnesses to the alleged affair between Reed and Stites.
• Jimmy Fennell failed a polygraph test during which he was asked whether he had strangled Stites, but this information was deemed inadmissible testimony because the U.S. Supreme Court considers polygraphs unreliable.
• Jose Coronado claimed to have been a co-worker with David Lawhon at Wal-Mart, and that Stites had told him Lawhon and Stites were dating.
• An unnamed defense witness claimed David Lawhon had confessed to him the murder of Stites.
• David Lawhon refused to testify in the Reed trial.
• Friends of Stites and Lawhon's ex-wife testified that knew had never heard of any relationship between Stites and Lawhon.
• Reed's defense claimed Fennell was a friend of one of the police officers involved in the investigation. This officer later commited suicide.

• Rodney Reed was convicted on May 18, 1998. Relevant information mentioned include:

• Reed was convicted after a jury deliberation of six hours.
• Stites' family and friends were relieved by the conviction.
• Stites' brother commited suicide shortly after her murder. Stites' mother stated that "because of what he did to my daughter, my son took his life".
• Upon conviction, Stites' sister Debra Rangel stated: "It feels good that justice was served and the system works. But our hearts go out to Reed's family. They obviously love him".
• Reed's family wept, convinced that Reed was innocent.
• According to the prosecuting attorney, no evidence whatsoever was presented at trial verifying a relationship between Reed and Stites.

• Rodney Reed was sentenced to capital punishment on May 28, 1998. Important information mentioned here include:

• Reed was sentence to death after a jury deliberation of four hours.
• Upon the sentencing of Reed, prosecuting attorney Charles Penick stated: "We removed a very dangerous criminal from the streets of Bastrop County and of Texas... Reed is a predator and a rapist and just a horrible person.. The evidence was overwhelming. There was no doubt he would be a threat to society in the future... This is one of the most dangerous people I've been confronted with."

• To this day, Stites' sisters Debra Oliver and Crystal Hefley maintain that there was no relationship between Reed and Stites, that Fennell is innocent, and that Reed should be executed.

101.108.124.126 (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Bravo!! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.204.182.144 (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the Bravo and Thank You. I did not necessarily use the material suggested when editing the article, but I read and summarized the references that you collected. I think it is a very well balanced article, although additional material needs to be added to the section about the public outcry to save him. Bueller 007 (talk) 02:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Never mind. The sanitization has immediately commenced again. I'm sure the article will be empty again soon enough. Bueller 007 (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Excellent work Bueller 007! This recent source from KVUE might also be useful for this article. 80.211.32.34 (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. It's already included as a reference, but I didn't use it in building the article. It would definitely be a good source of additional info. Bueller 007 (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The following primary source probably cannot be used directly, but is the most detailed accounting of the case by the state: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1764221/ex-parte-reed/ Bueller 007 (talk) 01:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME violations

I have removed content referring to crimes for which the article subject was never convicted of a crime as per WP:BLPCRIME. I do not believe Reed is a "public figure" as he is barely notable. He is only notable for his conviction and the recent efforts to overturn that conviction. I think there are questions whether Reed is even notable enough under WP:BLP1E. Even if notable enough for a Wikipedia page, that does not mean the person is a public figure. See WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, which states "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability". Wikipedia's content regarding living persons is held to a high standard, and WP:BLPCRIME is meant to hold accusations of criminal conduct to an even higher bar for inclusion. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

You continue to misrepresent what a "public figure" is, and you have not responded to the comments above as requested. Instead you started your own section without addressing the previous comments, which clearly outline the case for including this material. You have also continuously misrepresented the findings of BLP noticeboard as having said that this material cannot be included because it ruled that Rodney Reed was not a public figure. When in fact, the Noticeboard discussion said that it could not be included because--at that time--they used primary sources. But they are now sourced to numerous reliable secondary sources. Your continued misrepresentation is *not* the behaviour of an honest actor.

To summarize the points above that you have decided to ignore, Reed is a public figure: he is *not* relatively unknown. He has thrust himself into the spotlight in order to appeal to the public to overturn his conviction. As a result, he has been featured in countless national news articles and television shows. He is a national cause celebre. Information about alleged crimes *can* be included, because they are directly relevant to the story told and therefore central to his notability. Those alleged crimes are what lead to him being investigated in the first place, and--because they were introduced to the jury during the sentencing phase--are the very reason why he was sentenced to death. The crimes are widely described in secondary sources. They are a key part of the story and can be included as long as they are said to be "alleged".

Your own preposterous standard would prevent including information about Nicolas Cruz (not yet convicted) being the alleged perpetrator of the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.

I of course expect no coherent reply from you, just ongoing edit warring. Bueller 007 (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

You need to read WP:AGF, especially given that you have repeatedly refused to engage in discussions about this issue. I was the one who started the discussion on this talk page about both BLPPRIMARY and BLPCRIME issues, and I also left the same comment on BLPN. I invited you to engage in either of those discussions at the time.

Reed, however, is not a public figure. He is barely notable enough for a Wikipedia page. A "public figure" is someone who is more important than someone who is merely notable enough for a Wikipedia page, which is why WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE says, "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article". Your interpretation would mean anyone notable enough for a Wikipedia page could have anything written about them, making WP:BLPCRIME pointless. If you want to change that policy, then go to the BLP policy talk page. The idea that someone who has gotten a little momentary coverage about his legal case is "well known" is an obvious violation to me. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

There is now clear consensus, from the various discussion threads above, for including this material. There are many instances where people become public figures because of a crime, or even an allegation of a crime. Discussion on WP about allegations of crimes for which people have become publicly known, but are not convicted, are legion. In this instance, Reed became a public figure for the very serious crime of which he was convicted, which makes the other allegations more than fair game. The other allegations are particularly relevant since they relate to his being suspected in the crime of which he was ultimately convicted. Further, they are relevant because this isn't a court of law, and readers are entitled to draw what rational conclusions they may from other allegations. It's also noteworthy that WP:BLPCRIME provides, "editors must seriously consider not including material..." It's a consideration, not a prohibition. In this instance, omission has been seriously considered and the consensus is to include it.John2510 (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Consensus includes more than the opinion of you and one other editor. I do not believe Reed is a public figure, as he is barely even notable enough for a Wikipedia page. You could take the issue to BLPN if you think you are correct, as this talk page has not received much traffic. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

There are a number of editors who have advocated for inclusion of this information, or noted its absence. If you think any of my edits are BLPN violations, you're welcome to raise the issue on that notice board.John2510 (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)