Talk:Aimee Knight

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)

Proposed change: allegations of systematic removal by Reddit

Since the article is locked, let me propose a small but important change here instead, concerning this sentence:

   This led to allegations that Reddit was removing all mention of Knight and banning users who mentioned her.

I would add the following to the end:

   This led to allegations that Reddit was removing all mention of Knight and banning users who mentioned her, which was later confirmed by an administrator for the website to be true.

The relevant citation for that last part, being "verge2021-03" ("Reddit activated standard processes to protect the employee from such harassment, including initiating an automated moderation rule to prevent personal information from being shared..." and subsequent text).

This is an important distinction to make because the text currently reads more as "these are unfounded allegations" rather than "this is true and confirmed by reddit itself after the site-wide protests emerged". It's a tiny change with no downside to it that shouldn't be controversial as the citation used is already in the article so if someone with edit access could make it, it would objectively improve accuracy here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:7F0:B1C0:4503:8C6B:C35A:6C01:3C01 (talk) 05:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, because this was confirmed to have occurred the phrasing here implies that the allegations were unfounded, which is somewhat contradicted (although not enough since it still leaves this open to interpretation) by the later sentence "Huffman also stated that Reddit would review its relevant internal processes and attributed user suspensions to over-indexing on anti-harassment measures". Tsumugii (talk) 11:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The Verge does not saying that all mention of Knight was removed on Reddit, or that all users who mentioned her were banned, in the quote you have given. Therefore, I oppose the change. I do not agree that the text of the article takes any sort of position on whether the allegations were "unfounded". We simply don't comment on it. — Bilorv (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 5 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 04:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Aimee Challenor → Aimee Knight – WP:COMMONNAME, Knight is her legal surname and what she is most commonly known as. Google results show that "aimee challenor reddit" has 23,800 results, while "aimee knight reddit" has 2,150,000 results. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 02:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Support, but not for your reasoning... You realize "knight" is a much more common word than "challenor", right? The 2 million results isn't representative of this topic. Anyway, searching in quotes and searching both google and the news, I can't really tell which one is more popular. The number of articles that mention each are close, and the Knight articles seem newer on the whole, but only slightly. Per WP:NAMECHANGES we should change, since reliable sources are routinely using the new name and there is a strong preference to prefer the new name if the old one is not provably more common. WPscatter ^t/_c 06:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Support per Wpscatter — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 22:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.