Talk:Tucker Reed

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 April 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles

California: Los Angeles / San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Oregon Low‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Accusation of Sexual Assault[edit]

Reliable sources (LA Times on 2013-07-22 and TheGuardian on 2013-07-28) reported in July 2013 that both university and law enforcement officials dismissed Reed’s sexual assault complaint against her ex-boyfriend. Whenever there is insufficient supporting evidence to determine whether an accusation is true or false, as with this case, the accusation is described as "unsubstantiated" or "unfounded". Both of the articles mentioned here were written by professional journalists using their news organization's normal fact-checking process. Other sources being used in the article are opinion pieces published on newspaper and magazine blogs (such as, Ms. magazine blog, Time.com blog, or Neon Tommy-USC) and should never be used to support an accusation of rape. Biographies of living persons should not be used to create impressions of either guilt or victimization when no criminal charges have been made. Jacstroh (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Activism and self-advocacy[edit]

I move to have this section deleted. Hardly any of the citations listed verify what's written. The LA Times reports that she's a co-signer on a civil rights complaint, in which she has a vested interest, see LA Times. The Department of Education has made an inquiry into the complaint, but an inquiry is not tantamount to finding civil rights violations. Can some please explain to me why any of this section should remain? Blinkettfoo (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Unless the complaint leads anywhere, it doesn't meet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:N%28E%29

Blinkettfoo (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section is based on her allegations against a boyfriend, not proven in court. Should the whole section be deleted? 208.44.84.138 (talk) 02:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources?[edit]

Content that is added must use reliable sources. My edits reflect the following facts: (1) Subject is notable for co-writing one published book, not for being an actress or social activist. (2) Amber House is currently a single book of a planned trilogy. (3) Social media websites such as personal blogs or magazine opinion blogs (such as, Ms. magazine blog) are NOT reliable sources, and should never be used to support an accusation of rape. MisTemPest (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While the blog posts may not be notable, IF she is notable, then any comments about her being a sexual assault survivor MUST be sourced, DIRECTLY to her, otherwise they need to be immediately removed. If you removed the references and not the statements, thats much more serious than if you simply left the blog posts. The article is at AFD, any refs, no matter how poor, can remain for now. thats not the worst that can happen. PS a blog site can be used as an external link. I have yet to comment on whether she is, in fact, notable by our standards, but i did add the blogs to support the statements.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your comment to mean: Wikipedia wants editors to "be bold"; if a source is not reliable then both the statement and source should be cut from an article. MisTemPest (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if we remove a source for a controversial statement, we can remove the statement as well, as i see has been done. Im fine with this, despite my adding it back, and will not revert. we can always add it back, or discuss it here, or add the info to the article on sexual assault if it gets more coverage but this article doesnt survive afd.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the blog post (and the reason I reverted and requested protection) is that it named the alleged attacker. I mean, his actual name. With photographs and everything. Actually the latest revert included the name, no less. So it doesn't really matter if it contributes to notability, it needs to stay off the article, period. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notable?[edit]

If this subject is notable, there should be coverage of her in reliable sources, either indicating she passes WP:BASIC or WP:CREATIVE criteria. Below are some links that might help:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 19:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this subject is notable as a writer or activist. Her mother Kelly Moore, Esq. as well. Ms. Reed is very troubled person who falsely accused a man of rape, plus she was charged with manslaughter. Ms. Moore and her family members often try to whitewash her reputation, falsify the facts about her activism, manslaughter charges, etc. I think she shouldn't be in Wikipedia. Cashodeen (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC) Cashodeen[reply]

I would have to argue that her being on Wikipedia would make it MORE difficult for her family to "whitewash her reputation". Andelocks (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]