Talk:Aimee Challenor

Incorrect summary

The reddit portion indicates subreddits went private simply for hiring her. This isnt the case, they went private because of the censorship that was in place (such as banning a mod for mentioning her name) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.207.143 (talk) 10:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• The discussion here on this page at #"and accused Reddit of censorship" is already addressing this, notice. Uncle G (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• It was actually both reasons, hiring the person and the censorship. They go hand in hand. Prior to the censorship hitting a mod of a popular subreddit, no one knew this person worked for Reddit. There was more outrage about Reddit hiring this person than the censorship, if anything, the latter added more fuel to the fire. 2603:301D:22B2:4000:61B4:5DA4:BB32:4FB5 (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems that the initial spark was the r/UKpolitics moderator being banned then when it started snow-balling, the majority of the user's reactions was centered around this person "being a paedo" (which as much as it's a reasonable opinion to hold, it's ultimately unsubstantiated). So yes, both are correct and probably other reasons too, including generally-poor perception of reddit staff by the user-base, previous ethical issues with the site's administration, etc, etc. I don't think the article as-is is misrepresenting the events but if anyone feels the wording needs improvement, I'm not opposed to that. 2804:431:C7CE:9849:CA44:F988:9EE5:9A09 (talk) 00:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The claim "no one knew" is not supported by any RS I'm aware of. It makes no sense since Linehan's blog/substack was already talking about it before the UKpolitics stuff happened. Nil Einne (talk) 11:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The reverse is true as well at this time as there is no source that says anyone knew about her past until the permanent ban of a moderator. Regardless, I think this doesn't matter since the issue at hand is if the summary is correct or incorrect regarding why the subreddits when private. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

That's bull crap. The Verge mentioned Linehan's blog posting [1]. While it doesn't clearly say it was from before the blow up, it strongly implies it. I suspect other sources do mention Linehan's blog as well maybe some are even clearer it predated the blow up, but I'm not looking further since it's a silly argument. Clearly it was being talked about before it blew up. While Linehan's substack may be very far from an RS, so we can't use it in the article, my argument stands; it makes no sense to repeat arguments on the talk page which we know are clearly false as if they are true, just because we're not aware of any RS. Nil Einne (talk) 14:51, 29 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)