Misplaced Pages

Talk:Linda R. Reade

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nagle (talk | contribs) at 17:12, 21 April 2014 (→Rubashkin Case). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:12, 21 April 2014 by Nagle (talk | contribs) (→Rubashkin Case)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
WikiProject iconBiography: Politics and Government Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconUnited States courts and judges Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 - 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, attracted national headlines and eventually created documentaries on the US justice system.

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.

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

Until today many (or perhaps most) farms rely on illegal immigrants for their workforce. ]

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)
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 Misplaced Pages'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)
Categories:
Talk:Linda R. Reade Add topic