Talk:Jessica F. Cantlon

	Biography portal 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
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Women scientists C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science 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.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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:

Jessica Cantlon Carnegie.tif

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reason Article

So "funded by koch" obviously means that he is the direct editor? Or is the person who reverted that reverting changes based on conspiracy theory mumbo-jumbo. If Koch funded a study of gravity it wouldn't discount the findings of the study. This is soo immature that I need an adult to come in and lecture that person please. You can revert the changes all you want, but your reasoning is immature and the language you used in the reverts also shows an immaturity to the process of, you know, cataloging information.If anyone would like I would love to see the rebuttal of Hertzog's reporting plus a list of the factual inaccuracies of Reason.com which should be easy to find. Except for it's incredibly high standards of fact checking. I assume were they so-known as conspiracy peddlers then their Wikipedia entry would say so. 73.60.59.91 (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source is not credible -- no plaintiffs were interviewed, its based on only the testimony of Jaeger and a report taken down by the university, was published in a magazine with right-wing funding. Nimchimpski (talk) 05:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get someone to ban this sockpuppet? My apologies but information is not destroyed or lost just because a college was afraid of lawsuits and wanted an issue to go away. For instance if a wife abused by her husband decides to forgive and stay with that person it doesn't mean that the abuse never happened. These (multiple) reports exist and are linked. They were done by actual investigators and as far as anyone can honestly say were done in good-faith. Removing them because of your own individual and particular bias and conspiracy theories about funding is not good justification. ```` 73.60.59.91 (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is noteworthy that two users, with no edits except to Celeste Kidd, Richard N. Aslin, and Jessica F. Cantlon are working to suppress and hide all evidence of the Reason article that shows that the investigation against Florian Jaeger was apparently malicious and without merit. At worst, this is sock-puppeting from one of those three individuals (or their close associates); at best, it is a politically-motivated attempt to avoid any counter-narrative -- which seems in keeping with the actions of Kidd, Aslin, and Cantlon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.42.21.228 (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is unsettling and interesting and I would love someone at wikipedia to weigh in on it. ```` 73.60.59.91 (talk) 02:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANYONE ACTUALLY WANT TO USE THE TALK PAGE??73.60.59.91 (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m going to add in the information from the white report

And reference Katie hertzog’s reason article. Anybody have an issue with that? 174.192.6.133 (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I came here after reading the Reason.com article. Anything you can add based on reliable sources is welcome, but of course it would be best to add references that have no political leanings. Be careful not to take things out of context, because there could be yet another blowup of this thing. IBE (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]