Talk:Aimee Knight/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Aimee Challenor, 2016 (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Newsweek source

CatCafe has added a Newsweek source (see WP:RSP, not generally reliable post-2013) to source two claims. The first is a contentious fact about a child rapist, per WP:BLP we need high-quality sourcing and Newsweek is clearly not that. The second claim, untrue, is that Challenor was (publicly verifiably known to be) "fired". The Reddit source does not say this. It says she is no longer employed. She may have quit, for instance (obviously over the attention the situation was garnering, but quitting "under a cloud" is still not being fired). Even if Newsweek were reliable, headlines are not reliable, only the prose content of sources. So in summary, neither claim are appropriate with the given source, but maybe there's another source for the first one. — Bilorv (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv why are you still banging on about the "fired" topic? You deleted it and I didn't revert it. Please get your facts straight. Also the other claim from newsweek is pulled from and supported by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse publications and findings. CatCafe (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I saw the "Undid revision 1015359830" and assumed you'd undid the whole thing, especially as your edit summary didn't imply otherwise to me. Just the first point to resolve then. It remains the case that Newsweek is not reliable for the first claim—that doesn't mean the claim is untrue and it doesn't mean they didn't get it from somewhere reliable. If an unreliable source gets its information from a reliable source then... we quote the reliable source. You'll have to help me connect the dots on this one: I can't find any mention of the "Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse publications and findings" anywhere in Newsweek, nor any indication of where they got that information from; I also can't find it mentioned in the article. So if you'd be kind enough to give me an indication of where I can access this publication and where it says when David Challenor was fired (to be honest, I'd like to know whether it was before/after Challenor stood down from the deputy election, not just that it was in August sometime) then I can replace Newsweek with that source directly. Thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 10:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, reading through the source and searching for keywords such as "Challenor" or "expelled" would be easier than me quoting all the party said here. Also the party stated Aimee was suspended pending. I can't assist any more than this. CatCafe (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

You said that Newsweek got their information from this report, right? The full relevant text is (without reference to a report), In August 2018, David Challenor was convicted and sentenced to 22 years in prison, and was formally expelled from the party, right? But the Independent Inquiry source I've now skimmed and I see that it does support the given text. So I've removed the Newsweek source but none of the text. — Bilorv (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes and yes and you're flogging a dead horse. There is nothing wrong two sources supporting text. As I said, "I can't assist any more than this", because you don't read the latest update of page, nor the linked sources, prior to going on long-winded debates here on talk. CatCafe (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of particular facts, Bilorv is correct. The modern iterations of Newsweek (post-Washington Post ownership) are not reliable for BLPs, and should never be used for contentious BLPs at all. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 12:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

50.248.234.77 you forgot to login when commenting. CatCafe (talk) 01:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we should be using the independent inquiry document except as an additional source per WP:BLPPRIMARY. As always, any findings which were publicised in a reliable secondary source (i.e. not Newsweek), sure we can include such details. But any findings which weren't no. If no reliable secondary source thought they were significant enough to mention, then we shouldn't either. Nil Einne (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Smear Campaign

Bilorv has reverted my edit:

In September 2018, The Times reported that Aimee Challenor contributed names of women academics to be blacklisted in a "smear campaign" because of their views on gender.

Saying: Challenor is mentioned in passing in the source as having commented on a Facebook post, hardly the stuff of an encyclopedia article. The source provides no evidence Challenor had any editorial control over the creation of the list, nor that she participated in any form of "smear campaign", so this is guilt by association

AndyGordon (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

References

@Bilorv What is your reason in policy to remove this text? Its summarizing what a RS says about the subject of the page. I am going to revert, and lightly edit. AndyGordon (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I see no issue with what was posted here, this isnt a guilty by association thing. This is a reliable secondary source stating that there was a list being made to shame and target academics with false allegations of hate crimes who had views on gender they disagreed with and that Aimee sought to contribute to that list. It should be included but not in its current form. The current form appears to lack context and I feel needs a little more to it before its acceptable for inclusion, perhaps something along the lines of...

"In September 2018, The Times reported that Natacha Kennedy, a researcher at Goldsmiths, University of London created and circulated a list of UK academics to be shamed as part of a smear campaign due to their views on gender on Facebook, where organisers reportedly plotted to accuse listed academics of hate crimes in order to have them ousted from their jobs. The Times also reported that Aimee Knight sought to contribute names of several academics to the list."

Though perhaps this puts a little more emphasis on Kennedy which might not be fitting in an article that is supposed to be about Aimee herself. In any case, its useful information and should be noted on this page. RedAlert 007 (talk) 11:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

What you suggest, RedAlert 007, is hugely undue weight and a coatrack attack on an unrelated person (Kennedy). The policies that relate to my edit summary, AndyGordon, are simple inferences that any experienced editor can make: WP:UNDUE (mentioned in passing), WP:V/WP:NPOV (the misleading description of Challenor as participating in a "smear campaign") and WP:IINFO (a random Facebook comment is not "LGBT activism", as it is falsely labelled, nor the stuff of an encyclopedia), as well as a couple others I'll leave as an exercise to the reader. I'll add to this rationale that the text is ludicrously non-neutral in its vague description of the list's topic area: not "views on gender", but "views that transgender women are not women". To other editors: you can access this article in The Times via TWL, and Challenor is mentioned in it very briefly as follows: Aimee Challenor, [description of Challenor], was among those who responded to Ms Kennedy's post of August 14 to the Trans Rights UK Facebook group, with suggestions of who to blacklist. — Bilorv (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

It seems like fairly minor coverage of Challenor and, as per WP:BALANCE, I can't see that the article should spend much or any time on it. Bondegezou (talk) 09:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I see a lot of accusations in that article but very little substance. I don't see why we should waste valuable space on some random Facebook drama. I agree with Bilov that it is UNDUE --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

There has been a discussion in the Talk:Kathleen Stock page and I got more familiar with WP:PUBLICFIGURE. We do not have multiple WP:RS for this allegation, so we must leave it out. AndyGordon (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)