Talk:Aimee Knight/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| 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:
.jpg){kind=link}
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
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)
- You said that Newsweek got their information from this report, right? The full relevant text is (without reference to a report),
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)