Talk:Faith Goldy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Sources

this and [1] look useful, I've got no time tonight. Doug Weller talk 19:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Doug. I didn't really mean to refer to you when I opened this topic - I totally understand your confusion about that one source. Rather, there have been some (I am guessing two) IP editors taking objection to the term 'sympathetic', even though that is exactly the term the National Post uses and is clearly what makes the subject both notable and challenging to employ. :)

If you are convinced by your additional sources, you might want to revert the IP... Newimpartial (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Sympathetic coverage of the alt-right

Apparently, there are at least one or two editors that object to the use of the term "sympathetic" for Goldy's coverage of the alt-right for Rebel Media, which is established in multiple reliable sources. As she was fired for her over-sympathetic interviews with white supremacists, I don't really see the grounds for this objection, but it should be discussed in this forum rather than by IP editors disrupting the stable version of the article. Newimpartial (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I read the sources earlier today and that does seem to be the case. Sorry for confusing Global News with another site. Doug Weller talk 19:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Are these 'multiple reliable sources' not all hostile towards her opinion? According to her own Facebook page and Youtube videos she was at the Charlottesville rally as a reporter not a protestor and she was reporting what she saw happening, not championing it. If you want I can give you sources. AntonHogervorst (talk) 13:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The reliable sources represent the range of Canadian opinion, and note that even The Rebel felt compelled to fire her after Charlottesville. What is more, the current (stable) text stayes that she is "noted for her sympathetic coverage of the alt-right" which is literally true, significant and very much respectful of BLP policy. Self-sourced caveats really have no bearing on this.

Self-sourced caveats?? AntonHogervorst (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry; I tend to use my own shorthand. "Self-sourced caveats"=self-published or interview sources originating from the subject of a BLP, disclaiming or qualifying what is said about said subject by reliable sources. These sources are not considered reliable and are no substitute for (or approptiate counterweight to) reliably sourced coverage, per WP:WEIGHT. Newimpartial (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah, okay. So it is not relevant whether or not she considers herself as alt-right? That surprises me. AntonHogervorst (talk) 07:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

If the current version of the article said she is alt-right, or said she identifies as alt-right, it might be relevant (although it would not replace reliable sources). Since the current version says she is "notable for sympathetic coverage of the alt-right", which is well-documented, her own feelings about how sympathetic her coverage was/is are not relevant at all. Newimpartial (talk) 07:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes of course that is true. AntonHogervorst (talk) 09:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

“Jewspapers” and the “Jew World Order.”

The reference claiming to contain the proof of this says 'page not found'.

https://www.canadalandshow.com/rebel-media-hosts-antisemitism/

AntonHogervorst (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Archived version here. Doug Weller talk 14:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

It was the 's'. (https/http.) Do you think this information is reliable? I cannot find any other references of it. AntonHogervorst (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

A good question. The journalist who runs it is Jesse Brown (journalist). See [2]. And there's this. But that doesn't say who said what. So, maybe it should go. Doug Weller talk 18:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing

Why would this "The 'Charlottesville' Effect on the Canadian Far Right". not be seen as a reliable source? Asking before I put it back in. Newimpartial (talk) 14:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Protection

Also, please note that the fully protected version is not the stable or consensus version, which would be better reflected by the state of the article a week ago. Newimpartial (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:WRONGVERSION. Doug Weller talk 21:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I told the Admin they should have rolled it back to your Feb. 3 version lol. Newimpartial (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Faith Goldy by Peter Duke.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Faith Goldy - white supremacist?

I don't know if I should add that she is a white supremacist, even though there are sources that cite her as one:

https://thinkprogress.org/paypal-kicks-yet-more-white-nationalists-off-its-funding-site-6f359b586f72/

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-campaign-against-campus-appearance-by-far-right-activist-faith-goldy/

https://ricochet.media/en/2217/why-canadas-white-supremacists-want-doug-ford-to-win

Please let me know if I should add this content. Thanks. SmokerOfCinnamon (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

And this: https://gizmodo.com/ted-cruz-bravely-defends-alex-jones-against-facebooks-t-1827948027 wumbolo ^^^ 21:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Controversies

Okay, I agreed with Ohooh7 changes. Actually the whole article was a lot worse a few edits ago, and seemed to have the purpose to link Faith Goldy to Nazism and Jew hatred as much as possible. Frankly the fact that the Daily Stormer was mentioned trice, was that bad styling or intentional, e.g. If you want to put it back again I won't be defiant, that is useless. But this is my humble opinion. AntonHogervorst (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Uhm, do we have an edit war now? I see many changes. I just leave it for now. The present version is at least a lot better than a few weeks ago.AntonHogervorst (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I propose we improve the sentence in this section:

"Goldy mocked anti-fascist counter-protesters and complained of apparent police bias against the alt-right demonstrators.[8]"

Reference 8 is not to the point. I propose we instead use The Washington Post article, "Fear of ‘violent left’ preceded events in Charlottesville" as it directly quotes Goldy on these two points and is confined to the topic (Ref. 8 is concerned with the effects on her employer The Rebel Media).

The Post piece also quotes her as mocking counterprotesters from Antifa and Black Lives Matter but not others like Redneck Revolt and Solidarity Cville (see New York Times article: Who Were the Counterprotesters in Charlottesville?).

So reword and replace the wikilink to generic anti-fascist with links to the groups attacked like so:

"Goldy mocked counter-protesters Antifa and Black Lives Matter..." Skingski (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Faith Goldy - neoNazi?

Come on, that is putting a lot of erosion on the word neoNazi. Furthermore, Right Wing Watch? New Republic? Yeah right, they would probably say I am a neoNazi too! Should we really takes those claims seriously? We might also include what Jihad Watch has to say about it, if we speak for Right Wing Watch. I think it is a joke, and if you keep it, it just eroses the word neoNazi. AntonHogervorst (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

You might be interested in a thread from last week at BLPN where this very thing was discussed. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Faith Goldy 2. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I gave my opinion there. I will not edit the article. No use in 'edit warring'. My opinion is clear, I leave it up to your decision. AntonHogervorst (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Hm, I think maybe I misled you there, I realize now that my question at BLPN was about how she should be described in an extremely condensed summary in a list, not necessarily what's the best way to describe her here in her own biography. The article notes that "her views have been described as" neo-Nazi, white nationalist, etcetera, and that she disagrees with these labels, all of which is true although some of the sources we've used here may be biased. Is it appropriate to say she's "been described as" neo-Nazi when the source describing her so is so obviously biased? I'm not sure. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I would not write that in the article. But from the other hand, if people read the source they can infer themselves it should be taken with a grain of salt. AntonHogervorst (talk) 10:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Faith says that vandals wrote her Wikipedia page using un-sourced material. She says that the Jewish defense league has offered to pay for her security because of all this slander, including accusation that she is a Neo-Nazi. I tried to remove the term “neo-Nazi” but someone has reverted it back. This is ridiculous.Faith interview--Jane955 (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Faith can say what she wants about Wikipedia; we go by what reliable sources say about the subject, not how the subject would like to be viewed. If you think the sourcing for the statement is substandard then that would be a good place to start a discussion. If you'd like to read up on some of the previous discussion on this topic before rehashing the same arguments again, please start with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive273#Faith Goldy 2. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Seriously if you look at the history of this article there áre constantly 'antifa' users that want to put as much neonazi in the article as possible. I started looking at the article after the Unite the Right rally. In a then very short article it seemed like someone wanted to say "DailyStormer!! NeoNazi!!" as much as possible. Then there was this claim she talked about "Jewspapers" which had no reliable source at all. It was removed after I denoted that, but still it was there for weeks before it was removed. Now in the head of the article it say "She is been seen as a neonazi" .... yeah by Right Wing Watch as 'reliable' source. Clearly al least some editors want to use this article to libel her as much as possible. You should be blind not to see that. (Nevertheless I think most readers would see through this nonsense.) AntonHogervorst (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

FYI.I am talking about two edits on "21 okt 2017" with the comments "Avoiding three references to Daily Stormer in such a short artikel, which seemed bad style to me." and "although Salon references this, the only source is Canadaland - not sure that's enough" AntonHogervorst (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the Biographies.These "reliable sources" didn't say she is a Neo-Nazi but that she talked with a Neo-Nazis. Faith supports Israel, the Jewish people and is defiantly not a Neo-Nazi. The Palestinians who send fire-kites in the shape of a swastika (into Israel) are not considered Neo-Nazis by Wikipedia, even-though they are a type of modern day Neo-Nazis. (There were Muslims SS Division in the Nazi army.)Faith in Israel--Jane955 (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Issue resolved here. Skingski (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Defensive quote

Today, while I was reviewing a source related to Goldy's Charlottesville coverage, I found a quote from something she wrote in defense of her livestream, which seemed relevant in the context of her views on white genocide. I don't have the source document, but it was republished in the Toronto Star and I've included the citation. I added it here, but it was reverted for a reason I don't quite understand. I don't care much about whether the quote is included or not, but I don't think that Pizza gutts' reason for reverting ([3]) is valid. Quoting the subject's own words as to her interpretation of her views is not reporting those views as fact, it's reporting them as she sees them, and we're doing it here within the context of her reliably demonstrated support of the white genocide theory. I'd like to restore the quote, but I'd like to know what others think first.

Also, just soapboxing: only racists go around saying they're not racists. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

When I edited the page previously and added a line about her thinking on the 'Jewish Question' and her support of Richard Spencer, I got this message justifying a 31 hour ban:

We aren't interested in what Faith Goldy says about herself or any primary source; we are only interested in what independent reliable sources state about her.

We aren't interested in what Faith Goldy says about herself. For that reason I removed the quote of her saying she wasn't a racist, because it was also in her own words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizza gutts (talk • contribs) 14:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

My comment that Pizza gutts is referencing was not in reference to the information itself, but in the source of the information. If an independent reliable source quotes her, that is valid; it would not be valid to post something that is sourced only to herself(or any primary source). 331dot (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe someone should add more about what she actually said and did at the Unite the Right rally. Right now the page is just her defence without any quotes of what she said or even that she captured one of the clearest videos of the death of Heather Heyer. It's a bit one-sided. Also I'd add her support for banning Planned Parenthood and 'putting a fence' around Toronto Community Housing under the municipal politics section. IDK ivanvector

Sure, do you have something in particular in mind? I went over a number of sources to get to the bit that's there now, and I didn't see anything about Planned Parenthood or TCH. Just so you know, when you use a ping template you have to sign your edit or the ping doesn't work. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Article extended-confirmed protected as arbitration enforcement

@EdJohnston: was this action related to a request? I haven't seen one, but I'd like to know if there has been a request somewhere so as not to fall afoul of any related sanctions. Thanks in advance. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

No, it was a spontaneous protection on my part after checking the recent edit history. Since Faith Goldy is Canadian, some people might argue that WP:ARBAP2 couldn't be applied. EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Stormer

That Daily Stormer podcast is mentioned twice. The references are close together, and it is a really short article. It is not good style I think. Rewrite it? Put the two paragraphs together? AntonHogervorst (talk) 09:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Here's an idea and other thoughts: For Mention #1:

"On August 17, 2017, The Rebel Media fired Goldy for being interviewed on The Krypto Report, a podcast produced by the neo-Nazi site The Daily Stormer.[14][15]"

we should only use the citation "Why we had to say goodbye to Faith Goldy" as it is a primary source;

We could keep the present 14-15 for context, but these citations must be fixed to meet Wikipedia format guidelines.

Also we can change the sentence to:

"On August 17, 2017, The Rebel Media fired Goldy.(Rebel Media citation, 14-15)"

and restrict the Krypto Report note to the second mention since that is a Controversy as you suggest.

Mention #2 should be changed:

"Goldy's video also recorded the car attack which killed counter-protester Heather Heyer. These broadcasts, together with her interview on The Krypto Report, were central to the resignations of Brian Lilley and Barbara Kay from The Rebel,[31] and Goldy's own subsequent dismissal.[4]"

First, we need a citation for the car attack recording.

Second, according to Mention #1 with refs. 14-15 and the Rebel Media citation, the Stormer interview was the sole reason for firing, not Charlottesville. Lilley and Kay's resignations belong on their own and the Rebel Media wiki pages, not here.

My suggestion is to expand and change the last sentence to:

"Rebel Media head Ezra Levant was upset that Goldy had defied his "direction to her not to go [to this event] in any capacity."(Rebel Media citation) He later fired her for granting an interview on The Krypto Report, a podcast produced by the neo-Nazi site The Daily Stormer,[14][15] saying she had gone "too far."(Rebel Media citation)" Skingski (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• Just to note: when AntonHogervorst left this comment a year ago, the article looked like this, and then he trimmed the duplicated sentences himself ([4]) a couple weeks later, which I agree was the right thing to do. But it's obviously changed a lot since all that happened, so let's just be sure we're all talking about the same thing here.

Mention #1 is in the lede, which is meant to be a summary of the article content. Duplication is okay, though it should be summarized. If we need to expand on minor details, it should be in the body. In my opinion, it's a significant detail if she was fired because she appeared on a neo-Nazi podcast, so we should find a way to include that detail in the summary, although from what I'm seeing that might not quite be true. There's also a guideline that recommends that citations not be used in the lede at all, but WP:MINREF conflicts with that and must take precedence here.

Mention #2 is the details. Really we should not use the Rebel Media source because it's a primary source, but it's probably okay in this context - we have the reason why she was fired straight from the horse's mouth so to speak, and then a secondary source in reliable media (Global News) that backs that up. That's how it should work. And for that reason I'm wary of your suggestion for expansion, as you have it sourced only to Rebel Media and it seems to conflict with other sources writing about that subject. For example these generally-reliable news sources describe her dismissal as:

• The Guardian: "... Faith Goldy, sacked from Rebel Media after palling around too much with white supremacists in Charlottesville ..."
• Winnipeg Free Press: "[Levant] fired Goldy three days after her video rebuttal [unclear if this refers to the Krypto Report appearance or not], fearing she had created the misconception that the Rebel was in league with the Charlottesville Unite the Right organizers."
• Global News: "The Rebel fired one of its most prominent hosts, Faith Goldy, after she covered the protests in Charlottesville ..." Global also covers Levant's direction not to cover Charlottesville, which seems important in context.
• National Post: "Levant fired Faith Goldy, the contributor who had covered the weekend’s protests in Charlottesville."

These are good sources for how reliable media interpret Levant's public dismissal explanation, and it seems to me that the interpretation is that Goldy was fired for covering Charlottesville, but maybe it's okay to say (based on Levant's letter, but not sourced solely to it) that she was fired for appearing on the Krypto Report to defend her Charlottesville coverage. But it's also apparent (see the As It Happens interview) that Lilley and Kay decided to leave because Goldy's coverage of Charlottesville appeared on Rebel Media, and both resigned before Goldy's appearance on the Krypto Report, and so it lends credence to the timeline that Goldy was fired for going to Charlottesville, and appearing on Krypto was just "icing on the cake". So I suggest:

Conservative pundits Brian Lilley and Barbara Kay both resigned from Rebel Media after Goldy's broadcasts were published to the site.^{[As It Happens]} She was fired from Rebel Media after appearing on The Krypto Report, a podcast on the white supremacist Daily Stormer website, to defend her coverage of Charlottesville.^{[Dan Lett]} Rebel Media founder Ezra Levant explained that he had directed Goldy not to cover the events in Charlottesville, and that her appearance on the Daily Stormer was "just too far".^{[Global News][Rebel]}

I just now added refs in for the video recording, and updated a couple others, and that's thrown off the ref numbering referred above so I've referred to them by name instead. I thought I had a source in the article when I added the video content, but I must've overlooked it. I think that the sentence about her video capturing the car attack should go before Dan Lett's comments, it would flow better that way. Thoughts? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector Cool! So, I just noticed a 3rd reference to her firing in the White genocide section: “...as well as contributing to her dismissal at The Rebel Media.“ We can safely delete this.

Also, you mention lede refs. - do we know why there is a citation for her name in the first sentence of the page?

(I definitely was off my game with primary sources in saying e.g., "He later fired her for...” vs. “He claims he later fired her for...." -- ugh!)

Regarding the 4 possible refs for why she was fired:

• The Guardian: This does not mention Krypto and cites no sources on her firing – but then it is about South Africa, not Goldy's firing.
• Winnipeg Free Press: I haven't found any rebuttal video by her. The author also provides no source for the claim she created a misconception or was fired for it. In this Rebel piece Levant seems to solely blame the media for the misconception. I suspect the author put the Krypto Report mention before the paragraph on her firing to give the impression the Rebel was fine with the interview.
• Global News: This review does not say why she was fired. It does make a great citation as you note on her defying Levant's direction. It also offers something we don't have yet – an apology: "Of her appearance on the Krypto Report, she acknowledged “a poor decision.”" Canadaland also has a link to her full statement and reveals part of it on their site:

“I made a poor decision that has had unintended negative personal and professional consequences on those I care about most.”

• National Post: Again, no info on why she was fired; it only provides the YouTube link of Levant explaining why -- the transcript of which we have the link to now.

The Canadaland reference explains her firing from her perspective:

“She posted a long note on social media explaining that Levant had terminated her contract after it came to light that she had “appeared on a podcast affiliated with [neo-Nazi website] the Daily Stormer while in Virginia.”

The Varsity reference (which needs fixing) also notes why:

“In August 2017, Goldy appeared on a podcast affiliated with the Daily Stormer, an online neo-Nazi media outlet. She was subsequently fired from Rebel Media for that interview.”

I prefer Canadaland as this ref. is more an unrelated protest letter than an article about the firing.

• Generally, I like your paragraph. More notes for it are:

I don't think we can say she appeared on Krypto to defend her Charlottesville coverage. Levant's statement neither names the podcast's title nor why she was on it. Lett's article does not say why she did the podcast either. I infer from her piece here her motive involved 'engaging the alt right in conversation.' Maybe the Stormer or podcast says why? Right now, I recommend we drop the phrase.

The “As It Happens” interview directly links Goldy's coverage to Lilley's exit, but it doesn't mention Kay - Harper's Toronto Star ref does. She and a third person John Robson per the CBC here were less specific about why they departed, but it feels like Goldy was the last straw too. Since they aren't specific about Goldy and since this as well as other changes that occurred as a result mostly concern the Rebel not Goldy, I think we should only mention Lilley and leave the rest to the Rebel wikipage. Moreover, Lilley is the more notable. (BTW, the “As It Happens” ref should prolly be on the Rebel wikipage too.)

If we keep Mention #1 of her firing as is, then at least there's no need to repeat that the Stormer is white supremacist.

I would substitute the Global News and Canadaland citations which do say why she was fired for the Lett reference for the reasons above.

So my draft revision of your paragraph is:

Conservative pundit Brian Lilley resigned from Rebel Media after Goldy's broadcasts were published to the site.^{[As It Happens]} Goldy was subsequently fired from Rebel Media after appearing on The Krypto Report, a podcast on The Daily Stormer website, to defend her coverage of Charlottesville.^{[Global News][Canadaland]} Rebel Media founder Ezra Levant explained that he had directed Goldy not to cover the events in Charlottesville and that her appearance on The Daily Stormer was "just too far".^{[Global News][Rebel]} Goldy later admitted she had made “a poor decision” in consenting to the Stormer interview.^{[Global News][Canadaland]}

On the car attack, we should prefer references that are on the topic to peripheral ones like Harper and Lett's views on Rebel Media's problems. I found this one: “Footage Surfaces of Violence At Charlottesville Rally” - it objectively and exclusively focuses on the videos.

For placement, once we change the last sentence it should work where it is now - we will see. However, we should mention her rebuttal on the Rebel here to accusations like Lett's. Her full quote is:

“When I said that the Charlottesville Statement was a thoughtful document, it was not an endorsement." Skingski (talk) 05:04, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, a detailed reply! I'll try to respond to your points briefly:

• No, I don't know why there's a ref for her name, nor why it's sourced to that PressProgress article about the push to rescind her Gordon Cressy award which isn't otherwise mentioned in the article at all. It was added here by a known sockpuppet. We can just remove it. A name she briefly went by while in college does not need to be in the lede. Prior to that we had her name as "Faith Julia Goldy", which is fine.
• I think you're right about the sequence of events for the Krypto Report, the sources don't say she appeared on it to defend herself, just that she appeared on it. I did have a source for there being a second defensive video after Charlottesville, there's a link in one of those refs to one of Goldy's tweets but it's been deleted. I would see if I can find it but I don't think we can use it anyway. Harper in the Star says she "wrote" in her own defense and quoted a snippet, so maybe I'm just wrong about the second video.
• If we take out Kay, which I'm fine with, then we can mention that Lilley is also a Rebel co-founder, and rework the paragraph fragment for context. Here's where I've ended up:

Rebel Media co-founder Brian Lilley resigned after Goldy's broadcasts were published to the site.^{[As It Happens]} Goldy was subsequently fired by co-founder Ezra Levant after she appeared on The Krypto Report, a podcast on The Daily Stormer website.^{[Global News][Canadaland]} Levant explained that he had directed Goldy not to cover the events in Charlottesville and that her appearance on The Daily Stormer was "just too far".^{[Global News][Rebel]} Goldy later admitted she had made “a poor decision” in consenting to the Stormer interview.^{[Global News][Canadaland]}

As for Lett, I think we should pull that out into a separate paragraph, and maybe move it to the "white genocide" section under the "views" header. We can deal with that afterwards. Any other thoughts or should we go ahead with these changes? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry on the detail. I'm a scientist so I get autistic about things :) The only linked defensive tweet I saw was to this: "Fired for who I talked to, not what I said ✔️". It doesn't add anything new and it's not contemporaneous.

I was also going to add Lilley is a co-founder, but I double-clutched as he said he divorced himself from that appellation when turning freelance for Rebel as if it was a job title, not a fact. Definitely add "co-founder". Your new draft paragraph looks terrific.

On moving the Lett part, go ahead and let's see how it looks.

Yes, let's move on these changes. Skingski (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

convenience break

I made the changes as discussed, and I moved Lett's comments up the page as I suggested - we may need to expand this for context and her rebuttal. I also moved the "white supremacist" descriptor for the Daily Stormer out of the lede and into the detail section in the body. I think it makes better sense there, as it explains why appearing on that website would be cause for dismissal. Let me know if anything seems off. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks good. I think moving Lett up is a good call. Per our discussion I removed the citation after her name and restored her name to what you said. Skingski (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The 3rd reference to her firing under Life and career repeats almost verbatim the lede sentence. Since we go into the why of her firing later, can we change this to a date range for her employment at the Rebel instead? For that matter, perhaps we chronologize all her significant employment history?

Also 3rd ref. calls the Stormer "neo-nazi", while later we say it's "white supremacist". To cite a difference implies Jamaicans could also run neo-nazi groups calling for black supremacy. Since neo-nazism is their main thing, perhaps we swap "white supremacist" for the potentially more accurate adjective "neo-nazi"? Skingski (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, let me know your thoughts on my alternative reference suggestion for the car attack video. Skingski (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

And let me know on deleting the 4th reference to her firing under White genocide: "as well as contributing to her dismissal at The Rebel Media.[28]" Skingski (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

You're right, I forgot we discussed changing her name back and switching up the reference for the car attack video. I tried to add it just now but I hit an edit conflict, so I'll leave it for you to add. I noticed that ref 17 (Global, "fight over a 4-bedroom house") is now also duplicated, though maybe the next thing will take care of that.

For her firing under life and career, I don't think it's necessary to go into a chronology of her employment history: she was not a significant contributor to any of those publications, excepting maybe Sun News and those that came after, but it's not a résumé. Let's replace the last sentence with something like, "She was fired from The Rebel Media on August 17, 2017." and leave the explanation to the later section. Under views, though, I think it should stay: it's perfectly contextual to the section, and not so long as to exhaust the reader with repetitive details.

As for the Daily Stormer, our article describes it as both white supremacist and neo-Nazi, so it's really a coin flip. If you think neo-Nazi is more accurate then I'm fine with changing it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry on the conflict, I was in an editing frenzy. I just fixed those issues.

Other journalists/commentators (Jim Acosta, Rachel Maddow, Tomi Lahren...) have chronologies. Since she is not a big star, there shouldn't be a full resume, just jobs meaningful to her career like the Sun. I don't know what others to include - I haven't researched her much yet.

I re-checked the firing reference under Views/White genocide and realised the claim "her belief in the subject (of white genocide)" contributed "to her dismissal at The Rebel Media.[28]" is unsupported by reference 28. I also just realised this belief according to [28]'s Twitter link emerged ~5 months after she was fired, so it couldn't have been contributory. Actually every reference here was published months after her firing and discuss the change in her views since it. So we have no reference to prove this contributed to her firing; thus, I argue this phrase should be deleted.

We do want to address how and which of her outspoken views shaped misgivings at Rebel. For sources, so far I count Levant obliquely in his statements, whilst Lilley and Kay put it down to an editorial policy problem not calling out Goldy, and Goldy seems to deny her views were an issue.

On the 3rd mention, we already say "on August 17, 2017" in the lede. So can we shorten the 2nd mention to "in 2017"?

I changed the Stormer to just "neo-nazi."

Thanks for doing the changes, it looks good to me. I suppose the three examples you mentioned do have more of a chronological summary of their journalism careers, but like you I don't really know a lot about Goldy prior to Rebel Media either and I don't know really whether anything she did in the past is of much note, or if it was more like she had a handful of one-off pieces in some of those publications. Let's come back to this.

On ref 28 (the Guardian reference) I'm not so sure I agree with you entirely, but I agree the sources don't support the statement and it should be removed. The sources all say she was fired for reporting at Charlottesville or for appearing on Krypto, and your analysis of the timeline seems accurate.

As for Lilley, the intro to the interview mentions editorial control, but in the interview Kay clarifies that it was specifically Goldy covering Unite the Right that led him to leave. He says, "... editorial judgement that sees people go as activist journalists ... to a United The Right rally that is obviously just a front for a white supremacist rally left me concerned. That was just the last straw for me." And "I have not seen all of the [Charlottesville] footage, but I've seen enough, and enough of the commentary to say: OK, I can't be a part of that." The interviewer later gets him to explain why he didn't quit upon other controversial incidents, such as Gavin McInnes' "10 things I hate about Jews" video. All we're saying in the article is that Lilley resigned after Goldy's reports from Charlottesville, which is well-supported, and if our phrasing implies that Goldy's reports were causative to Lilley's departure, I think that's also supported by the As It Happens reference. I haven't heard the full interview myself but it is available on the site.

As for the lede, it's okay if we repeat things in the lede and in the body. The lede is supposed to be just a summary of the article's key points, there shouldn't be any new information in the lede that doesn't also appear in the article body. If we're going to shorten anything, it should be the mention in the lede. On that note it would be fine with me if we shortened the lede to "in 2017".

Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

On chronology, agreed. I'll see if I have time to research it and revisit it under a new heading here.

Removed the phrase

You're right, Lilley did not like her commentary - I missed that part. He doesn't say Goldy's views or reporting pre-Charlottesville was a problem -- it could've been - no sources yet. This info on his reasons should be on The Rebel Media wikipage or at least his own - it is to some extent. I did hear the entire interview - he didn't add more regarding Goldy. FYI, I just found a Sun News piece with her and Lilley; so they had worked together before their views drifted apart

As soon as I wrote that, I also thought, wait, the shortening should be in the lede! I'll fixed that. I did same for election date in same way for the same reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skingski (talk • contribs) 19:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 August 2018

In ==Life and Career==, change "She also began a Masters of Public Policy at the University of Toronto's School of Public Policy and Governance" to link to the School's wiki page e.g. "She also began a Masters of Public Policy at the University of Toronto School of Public Policy and Governance." Rgscherf (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

•  Done Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

)

"Faith Goldy-Bazos"

So, Goldy used to publish under the name "Goldy-Bazos", including in places such as the National Post.{https://nationalpost.com/opinion/faith-goldy-bazos-bethune-memorial-spat-masks-canadas-real-china-anxiety][5] The fact can be easily sourced, but I have no idea how to add it to the article—I can find no context on it. Was it her birth name? Was she married? This can't seriously be left out, but how to add it is a conundrum Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

She also used that name with Sun News. It seems it was a name she used in college per Ivanvector, no idea of its origin. We originally had it in the lede sentence, but took it out as it is not the name she goes by currently. We can certainly add it back there as an alias. Skingski (talk) 02:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I don't know the origin, but we can verify she used the name. How about: "Faith Goldy, also known as Faith Goldy-Bazos, is a ..." Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Me likes! Skingski (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

We are agreed on this change then? Skingski (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it's the best we can do given what sources are available. @Curly Turkey: any comments? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I guess that's all we can do. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change, just to conclude this section. Please edit as necessary. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:54, 4 October 2018 (U0 October 2018 (UTC)

Correct Grammar?

Hi,

Is someone, a 30/500, going to fix the incorrect grammar in "Goldy briefly walking onto the stage during the debate and complained about the organizers before police escorted her away"?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.69.20.8 (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2018‎

• Fixed. What's "a 30/500"? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The article is under WP:ECP, aka Wikipedia:30/500: "...allows edits only from registered users with at least 30 days tenure and at least 500 edits." Grayfell (talk) 21:52, 30

Gordon Cressy award given by university alumni

So far as I have seen in many other articles, any awards listed have to have their own article showing they are notable. There are millions of awards (literally) and most aren't worthy of an encyclopedia. For instance, Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines - ok, it's schools and not people, but the principle is the same. I guess I could start an RfC if needed. Doug Weller talk 15:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

If the only source is a press release, this doesn't seem significant enough to mention. We would need an independent source or secondary source which either indicates what this award signifies, who's eligible, how it's decided, and so on, or at provides some resource for readers to find out these things (such as through a sourced article). Right now the article provides neither, as the lone source at Gordon Cressy#Honours is also from the same alumni association. Grayfell (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I suppose in this case the award could also be significant because of the more recent backlash to have her award rescinded, about which there are articles: [6] [7] [8]. But then of course we run up against WP:DUE - are we mentioning her award just to coatrack the backlash? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Ivanvector. We say the award rescission petition is a big deal and thereby for reasons of logical flow, we must establish the fact the award was given to her. If the award is not notable, we are coatracking and giving the (failed?) petition undue weight and both lines should be deleted.

Web searches show few mentions of the award outside the University of Toronto. Wiki lists only one other person with the award. ATM Wiki searches for Gordon Cressy Student Leadership Award fruitlessly lead here due to a strange failed merger with a stub article that had only university references. So for now, it is not very notable as Doug Weller & Grayfell note. Moreover, we lack evidence the award was significant to Goldy's career - so it lacks personal notability.

The article seems too long as is. So if the award is not notable, let's delete both mentions of it. If it is, keep both or just delete the last line on the petition. Skingski (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: are there any non-student sources for the petition? Because if not, we probably shouldn't include that either. Doug Weller talk 18:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by non-student sources? The Varsity is a University of Toronto student paper but the other two are independent. Here's another which mentions the award but not the petition, but only very briefly. If you mean petitions other than the alumni one? No, I don't have any info about any other petitions. FWIW I see in the Canadaland article that Cressy himself endorsed the letter. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Ivanvector's article mentions she is an U Toronto alumna, which means she graduated. We could use that ref. for the sentence on graduation - not ideal, but... Skingski (talk) 23:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 August 2018

Within the infobox, add the University of Toronto School of Public Policy and Governance as an alma mater (the School is stated as such in her Life and Career section).

e.g.: Rgscherf (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

•  Question: the article indicates that she started the program but not that she graduated. Do you know of a more up-to-date source? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I don’t have a more up-to-date source, but alma matter commonly refers to schools either graduated from or attended. See wiktionary:alma mater. Attendance at this school is relevant given Goldy’s engagement with the public policy sphere. Rgscherf (talk) 23:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• I'm deactivating the request because while you make a good point and I can't argue with a dictionary definition, I've just been reviewing and as far as I can see we don't actually have any sources to support Goldy's educational history. There must be since the info was added, but I can't find them. We should deal with this. We need to have sources for Goldy attending/graduating:
  • Havergal College (we have PressProgress or Canadaland but both are in the context of the petition to rescind her Cressy award, which isn't a great POV for this section)
  • University of Western Ontario (I couldn't find a source at all)
  • Trinity College (there's this from her Cressy Award listing, but it's very basic: doesn't say when she attended nor what degree she obtained)
  • U of T School of Public Policy and Governance (I couldn't find a source here either)

A number of you editing this page seem to be more adept at finding sources on this topic than I am, so I expect we'll be able to source all of this pretty easily. My Google-fu is coming up short this morning though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Completely agree we need better sourcing.

I found this bio on her. Not 100% confident on this site as it is mainly about Bollywood. Is it possible they used info from a prior version of this wiki page?

The Trinity reference: "She has been co-editor-in-chief of the Political Science Journal and an executive with the Association of Political Science Students." Notable? The journal itself should give dates on her.

I think I saw 2 references on her education. I will edit this comment if I find them Skingski (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The marathi.tv source specifically says the bio is "Wikipedia information", making this WP:CIRC. Additionally, the site invites submissions from anyone, and should be considered a blog. It should not be used for information in any BLP per WP:BLPSPS. The risk of circular referencing is precisely why this kind of thing needs to be monitored carefully. Grayfell (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Good catch, Grayfell. I was worried about that; I must've been tired. Skingski (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

In next Cressy Award Talk section, Ivanvector found an article that references her as a U Toronto graduate. I also found in an original incarnation of the page, her graduation, Havergal, etc. were pulled from her Linkedin page. I suspect marathi.tv copied Linkedin as it was used as a reference prior to the info appearing on Wiki. Does Linkedin fit as a reliable source for this scenario? (Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#LinkedIn) Have not checked other living biographies on this question. Her Linkedin is partly out of date as she does not seem to still be NewsTalk 1010 staff. Skingski (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 September 2018

Change:

Municipal politics

On July 27, 2018, Goldy registered to run for Mayor in the 2018 Toronto election. She has indicated that, if elected, her mayoral agenda will include the reinstatement of the Toronto Anti-Violence Intervention Strategy (TAVIS) and carding, affordable housing for millennials born in Toronto, the refusal of new illegal immigrants, as well as major repairs to Toronto's roads.

To:

Municipal politics

On July 27, 2018, Goldy registered to run for Mayor in the 2018 Toronto election. She has indicated that, if elected, her mayoral agenda will include the reinstatement of the Toronto Anti-Violence Intervention Strategy (TAVIS) and carding, affordable housing for millennials born in Toronto, as well as major repairs to Toronto's roads.

Her campaign platform also calls for the mass arrest of all undocumented immigrants currently awaiting asylum processing in Toronto, to be relocated to the residence of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau or "the nearest jurisdiction that will take them." Ossingtonian (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

References

• I'm personally wary of making this change, as its drawing significant attention to one controversial element of her mayoral platform, and is sourced only to her own website. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• I'm setting this to answered pending consensus. The section is already badly sourced, and we don't need more of the same. Since sources are treating this as yet another a publicity stunt instead of as a sincere run for office, the article should not give undue weight to her supposed platform. If sources do not think her platform matters -and why would they?- neither should Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 02:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with Ivanvector. Plus, while I don't see media reaction and actions reflecting she is insincere about her run, immigrant relocation, at least to Trudeau's home, is obvious attention-getting hyperbole, not a serious view. Skingski (talk) 02:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Tweets as sources?!?!

Come on, people—we're not seriously going to start loading up this article with "sources" that are tweets by Goldy herself, are we?! Particularly egregious is stuff like "She is a critic of feminism"—cited to the tweet: "You haven't even tried, Paradkar! Perhaps because there is no explanation, no philosophical consistency in your dogmatic world of critical race theory and intersectional feminism 😂". WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:PRIMARY, and I'm sure any number of other violations all shmeershed together in this one sentence fragment. This is not how to write an encyclopaedia article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Skingski (talk) 03:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)