Talk:Faith Goldy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Life and career and lede

A sentence in the lede states:

"She previously wrote for The Rebel Media, including her former program On The Hunt with Faith Goldy, and her live coverage of events surrounding the [[2017 Unite the..." 

Info on her show On The Hunt with Faith Goldy appears twice - here and in the Life and career section. I propose we delete it from the lede. Also she did more than write - she obviously anchored videos (reporting and commenting). So maybe change to:

"She previously wrote and reported for The Rebel Media, including her live coverage of events surrounding the [[2017 Unite the..." Skingski (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I assume this is uncontroversial from the tremendous nonresponse and so performed the change. Skingski (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The lede currently states:

"Faith Julia Goldy is a Canadian political commentator and a controversial reporter.[1] Goldy's views have been described as far-right,[2][3] white nationalist,[4] and neo-Nazi.[5][6]" 

The term "controversial" is a nonstandard use of an opinion in the lede. I propose the adjective be struck or moved into "Views".

Sentence 2 gives the opinions of critics of her views. This is confusing since her views haven't been introduced yet. The sentence should thus be moved into "Views".

Comparable examples:

Firebrands Bill Maher and Tucker Carlson are not characterised in the lede as controversial or in a pejorative manner. Critics' opinions appear in later sections. Ledes can include a self-descriptor - Rachel Maddow and Carlson are called respectively liberal and conservative appropo to their own quotes. Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton are not called controversial in the lede; only in a later paragraph in the lede after their views are outlined do epithets by their critics appear - interspersed with their rebuttals. Skingski (talk) 23:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Comparison between one article and another is tempting, but will only get us so far. Goldy is not like Maher or Carlson or the others you list, because those people are not commonly defined by their extremist ideologies in the same way that Goldy is. If reliable sources define her as a far-right white nationalist neo-Nazi, the lede should also, since the lede should reflect how reliable sources define a topic. If reliable sources also mention that she has disputed being a white nationalist etc., we could include her rebuttal with that source and attribution.

How do reliable sources define her? Do they specifically call her a reporter? Do they cite her reporting? I've not seen any such sources, but I have seen this label used as context for her being too fringe for a fringe website. We should look at sources and go from there instead of trying to compare this to other articles which almost certainly have their own set of problems. Grayfell (talk) 02:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Grayfell: generally speaking, there's been discussion on this already recently, see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive273#Faith Goldy 2. We did not cover the occupational aspect, though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Grayfell: One's opinion of her views as extremist does not create an exception to standard Wiki style. Indeed, her notability almost solely derives from her being the journalist who taped the Unite the Right murder - appropriately mentioned in the lede.

I argue against characterisations/rebuttals in the lede like big celebrities can have. It significantly lengthens an article about a minor celeb since it must be reiterated under Views. If she were more notable, I'd be inclined to agree with you - she may then merit a longer article that also includes detailed life history and employment, see Talk:Faith_Goldy#convenience_break.

The page has citations from reliable sources that call her a reporter, e.g., current Ref. 1 (which needs to be moved - a citation in lede sentence 1 is nonstandard).

Her reporting should not be cited unless it is in and of itself uniquely important, e.g., receiving special recognition or being life-altering. For this reason, only her Unite the Right coverage is cited and from this perspective. Skingski (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

While sources are not necessary in the lede, they are not prohibited, either. If it prevents edit warring, it's better to leave them in.

Okay, so let's be blunt. Her coverage of the Unite the Right rally is noteworthy specifically because of her poor timing and not because of her journalism. Her "luck" in being in the correct place to film the attack, and also her astonishingly poor timing in sympathetically commenting on the alt-right immediately before the attack. If this is why she's noteworthy, let's figure out how to explain that in the lede.

The three sources for "reporter" in the lede include the National Post which doesn't call her a reporter, and doesn't call Rebel a news outlet. It calls it a "media outlet" and Goldy a "personality". The Star calls her a "reporter" in scare-quotes: This after his “reporter” on the scene, Faith Goldy, seemed to be cheering on the white supremacists in the moments before a car plowed into a crowd of counter-protesters, killing 32-year-old Heather Heyer. The author is specifically challenging her legitimacy as a reporter. The Washington Post quotes her this way: On Saturday afternoon, shortly before her camera captured a car plowing through left-wing activists in Charlottesville, killing one and injuring more than a dozen others, Faith Goldy warned that the left was spinning out of control. “Hundreds and hundreds of antifa, weird BLM, idiots dressed like clowns,” said Goldy, a reporter for the Canadian alt-right news site The Rebel. “This is okay, as long as you’re not the alt-right. The alt-right wasn’t allowed to demonstrate any show of force.” This seems like context which should also be included. Note that Rebel is not called an allegedly alt-right news site, and the article doesn't mention Goldy besides this one incident.

All three of these sources, and many more besides, are contextualizing this as a debacle for the alt-right in general, and the Rebel specifically. The Rebel's "journalism" went from being a joke to being a sick joke. If this is the heart of the matter, it seems like calling her a journalist might be more confusing than helpful.

Put another way, not every job title someone can claim belongs in the lede of their Wikipedia article. The sources for her being a reporter don't strongly support this as a central, defining trait from what I have seen. Maybe "commentator" or something similar would be more appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Sources should be in the lede, but not sentence 1 - we already deleted one before Jane955 added this 12 days ago. Jane955 can argue against my proposal, but has not.

The lede is a thumbnail of the person. Context as to how Goldy taped the incident appears under Life and career where it should.

Reporter is a job, not a trait. Context is irrelevant - either she is a reporter or not. You note 2 further sources that agree she is.

As seen in the lede, it is already noted that she is a commentator too.

Please note: the page is not about the alt-right or Rebel Media and their journalism. Skingski (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

All three sources use significant qualifications when addressing Goldy's status as a reporter. The Washington Post one is the only one is strongest for this, and it is a single passing mentions which contextualizes her as a reporter for a questionable outlet. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and this goes two ways. We must not only judge the context in which a source is used, but also the context of the source itself. In context, none of these sources are strong indicators that she is primarily considered a reporter. Reporter is a job, but jobs can be "traits" to the extend they are defined as such by sources. Regardless, dwelling on that distinction would be pedantic.

If sources are using Goldy's behavior as an example of The Rebel's ideology or attempted journalism, than this article absolutely is about those things. The purpose on an encyclopedia isn't to remove a topic from its context, it is to provide enough context that it may be understood more clearly.

Chris Pratt was a waiter, Ronald Reagan was a cheerleader, Jared Taylor was a technology reporter. Not every fact which is verifiable belongs in the lede of an article. For Goldy, the term "reporter" is either avoided, or used sarcastically by two of the three sources used for that claim. We should not use sources for information they do not support, and we shouldn't include this anyway just because a single source uses the term in passing in an article which is primarily about something else anyway. Grayfell (talk) 04:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the conversation is a bit off track. Current [Ref. 1] (which should be moved) is our source for the fact that she's a reporter, not the Star and Wash Post opinion pieces that reiterate it. This fact is also in the lede of that article which is about her, reflecting the fact that Goldy is primarily considered a reporter. You may have missed it as it was just added a couple weeks ago. Skingski (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I was overlooking that source. There again, we need to look at the context. The CJN news source calls her a "controversial reporter and political commentator", while the Toronto Star source specifically uses scare quotes. So what is a controversial reporter, and what information does that really provide to readers? The term "controversial" is both vague and slightly euphemistic. We have the National Post source which avoids the term, and we have two sources which in some way qualify every use of the term. If nobody else sees this as a problem I'll drop it, but I don't think "reporter" by itself is an appropriate reflection of sources, and "controversial reporter" seems needlessly confusing. We have sources which discuss her history of sharing conspiracy theories and racist propaganda, which is contrary to a reporter's job of providing information to the public. "Political commentator" on the other hand, already covers this activity. Grayfell (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, before any action is taken, I hope we get feedback from @Ivanvector: or others on what we discussed regarding sentence 1 and moving sentence 2 into Views. Skingski (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I'm of the opinion that even calling her a political commentator is iffy: she's had reporting gigs in the past but she only really became known for being involved in controversies after following Ezra Levant from the failed Sun News to his self-described alt-right website, so I think it would be fair and accurate to call her an "alt-right commentator". But I'm fine with the proposal as well.

I'm in the woods for a few days so I likely won't provide more input here, but you two seem to have things well in hand. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I will make the changes and you guys can comment on how it looks.

Ivanvector, do you have a reference for Levant describing Rebel as alt right?

Research turns up that Faith self-identifies as conservative and ethnic nationalist. I'll put this in lede and hopefully briefly explain in Views. Skingski (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

She also self-describes as nationalist - so she may have beliefs beyond the narrower scope of ethnic nationalism. Until we have more info, maybe we not include it? Skingski (talk) 13:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The lede sentence reference now appears in Life and career to cite her job as commentator and reporter. Skingski (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

What? I'm sure she's described herself using many flattering terms, but that's not relevant. Of course she has beliefs beyond ethnic nationalism, so what? She has religious beliefs, and many political beliefs, and she probably has a favorite flavor of ice cream, but who cares? We are not trying to list every one of her self-described beliefs, we are trying to explain why she is noteworthy according to reliable sources. Since Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising or public relations it is totally inappropriate to use extremely obscure primary sources to whitewash the article to present her beliefs in the way she would most prefer them to be presented. Grayfell (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

This is inappropriate. These topics were discussed with an impression of agreement on action. I am reverting your edits until a new decision is reached on what the article should look like. I understand you are passionate about this topic which is good, but please refrain from further edit wars.

I already explained we must logically introduce her views before what her critics claim her views are, of which you seemed supportive. Also that we should avoid adding much length to the article and that 3rd party descriptors are not favored for ledes. Anyone can say anything about anyone - otherwise, we may as well replace Rachel Maddow's self-description as "liberal" with "Nazi" if we find a critic who says that. It doesn't belong in the lede and violates WP:Neutral_point_of_view.

Research on Goldy clearly demonstrates ethnonationalist is the correct term. Her exposition of this view explains why critics claim she is also a white nationalist - a point to briefly discuss in Views. I understand you wish to call her a Nazi as early and often as possible in the article, but that is not a neutral stance. The value of being neutral on topics like this is articulated in Wiki's Morally offensive views section.

While some references may be in your opinion, obscure, that does not make them unreliable especially when they directly and verifiably quote her. A dead link which is archived does not indicate an unreliable source, unless you did research on this source. One problem we face is that as a minor celebrity (thereby deserving a shorter article), she has few printed interviews and I want to avoid YouTube video citations.

Finally, you may not realise you are using personal opinions and insults instead of facts and research to argue for inclusion, highlighting or exclusion of information. Your help in improving this article has already proven invaluable, but the utility of that help depends on maintaining a dispassionate stance.@Ivanvector: Skingski (talk) 03:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

When you use the inflammatory term "whitewashing," I suspect it means that you did not see that the sentence you restored to the lede was never deleted, but moved into Views. By restoring it, we then had the same sentence twice. Perhaps this is partly where we got crossed up. Skingski (talk) 03:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

This is an excessively lengthy demonstration of false equivalence, and I'm not interested in matching it. Your opinion on what is the the correct term is WP:OR at best, and whitewashing at worst. Wikipedia article's should summarize reliable sources. Goldy is not a reliable source. We can explain what she says about herself only in proportion and with attribution. We do not downplay reliably sourced information just because its unflattering. Grayfell (talk) 03:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Skingski, looking over the conversation, I'm really not sure how you got an "impression of agreement on action" from the discussion. If someone is known primarily as an ideologue, it makes sense to describe them primarily by their ideology in the intro. Further, ideological self-descriptions are often self-serving and conflict with reliable sources and plain common sense: David Duke prefers to call himself a civil rights activist, but since sources pretty much uniformly recognize that this is patent nonsense, Wikipedia calls him a white supremacist. The question is "how do reliable sources describe Goldy". Nblund ^talk 23:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Nblund:Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. We will relitigate this issue. I will revert the edits to what they were prior to my first edit on this.

Goldy as reporter

I will restart this, point by point. First. @Grayfell:, the original version before your editing read:

"Faith Julia Goldy is a Canadian political commentator and reporter.[1]"

You said she was not a reporter based on your inferences (not facts) from 2 op-eds and that "we shouldn't include this anyway just because a single source uses the term in passing in an article which is primarily about something else anyway."

When I pointed out for the 2nd time that our primary source for her as reporter is Ref. 1, you said, "If nobody else sees this as a problem I'll drop it." No one did. Therefore, your removal of the word "reporter" is against what you indisputably agreed to. Let's revert that edit. Skingski (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I interpreted Ivanvector's comments to be in support of removing "reporter" in the comment that starts thanks for the ping. I'm of the opinion that even calling her a political commentator is iffy... If "political commentator" is iffy, which I agree, than "reporter" would be even more questionable. Since there is, potentially, support for removing it, and relatively few sources treat it as a defining trait, I would like to hear more from other editors on this issue.

As for "inferences", that's not going to work. I have explained how at least one source specifically refutes her status as a reporter, and we also have multiple sources which either avoid the term, or only use it in specific contexts. The existence of these sources is fact, and your interpretation of those sources has no privilege over mine. Context and nuance are not inference. We are allowed, and expected, to understand the sources we read before summarizing them. Grayfell (talk) 01:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I thought we already had agreement to remove "reporter" from the lede, so I didn't offer more comment on that. Nblund put words to what I've been thinking: she is known as an ideologue - she attained her popularity from being a prominent figurehead of [white nationalism/the alt-right/neo-Nazism/whatever]. Her previous gigs as an occasional reporter for various publications are not really notable - important to describe, but not central to her bio. Our article should reflect that reality. She doesn't "report" currently, and didn't really for The Rebel Media either (it's not a news outlet, it's somewhere between advocacy journalism and propaganda, and no Skingski I was not able to find a source for alt-right, only far right as it's described in its own article). Really, she's a video blogger. There's just not really an NPOV way to describe this, nor really reliable sourcing for the particular description, so I agree that "commentator" is probably our best descriptor. The lede could say something like "Faith Goldy is a commentator whose views have been described as .... She previously reported for <newspapers> and was a (staff commentator? not sure) for The Rebel Media ..." Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for disappearing - travel issues. OK, Ivanvector, obvi you did not see that on this question, Grayfell and I reached a point where I was in favor and IMO he would go with what the consensus was. We awaited your input. In any case, that leaves us with Jane955 and I in favor of keeping "reporter" and Ivanvector and Grayfell against. Let's 1st focus on the question rather than getting into the "ideologue" argument. Regardless of where we put the word reporter, can we first agree she's a reporter?

Grayfell says, "I have explained how at least one source specifically refutes her status as a reporter." No, that one and only source you love (but said we can't use) does not. You argue that the use of scare quotes in that opinion piece (not article) is code for she isn't a reporter. However, Scare quotes have multiple meanings. You chose the one to suit your interest and somehow you claim that trumps all other references. However this current Ref. 6 does not even support your claim. The Star article in full context says:

"Rebel Media's reporting from the rally could spell the end for the right-wing organization"

- No scare quotes; Goldy was the only Rebel reporter there, hence they call her a reporter

"his “reporter” on the scene, Faith Goldy, seemed to be cheering on the white supremacists"

- Scare quotes obviously reflect author Harper's criticism that she was not being an objective reporter, not that she wasn't a reporter. Even bad or controversial reporters are still called reporters.

I know you've done no research on Goldy, Grayfell, so here are citations just in this article alone with current citation # that describe her as a reporter:

CJN (Ref. 1): "controversial reporter"

Winnipeg Free Press (Ref. 2): "correspondent Faith Goldy"

New Republic (Ref. 4): "Rebel reporter," "If Faith Goldy had been any other journalist," "the value of Goldy’s reporting was overshadowed"

National Post (Ref. 5): Post/ex-Rebel contributor Barbara Kay obliquely refers to Goldy: "Most of the journalists who contribute to The Rebel are reasonable and humane people... it only takes one or two bad apples to spoil the bunch."

Washington Post (Ref. 8): "Goldy, a reporter for the Canadian alt-right news site The Rebel."

National Post (Ref. 15): "Faith Goldy reporting for Rebel Media"

The Globe and Mail (Ref. 18): "contributor and former Sun News reporter Faith Goldy"

The Inquistr (Ref. 19): "Rebel Media’s journalist Faith Goldy"

CBC radio (Ref. 20): "Rebel has recently come under fire for reporter Faith Goldy's live coverage"

Rebel Media (Ref. 22; her boss who paid her for the job of reporter and would've fired her earlier if she didn't report): "Faith Goldy... tough, hard-working, great journalist."

ThinkProgress (Ref. 23): "Faith Goldy, a former reporter for the far-right Rebel Media"

Right Wing Watch (Ref. 33): "Since being fired from her job as a reporter for right-wing outlet The Rebel Media"

Maclean's (Ref. 34): "Faith Goldy, a journalist-activist"

If you require more than 14 references, we could add more from the web and make this the only page on Wikipedia where someone's job description has 50 citations to back it up. Can we agree she's a reporter yet? Skingski (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Can I assume the lack of response from Grayfell and everyone = they agree so I can move the argument forward? Skingski (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow replies, I've been busy with other things. The one thing that I get from your sources is that The Rebel wanted her and all its content staff to be viewed as legitimate reporters, but it's not clear that other organizations saw it the same way, at least not consistently. I'm going to fall back on my earlier suggestion, that she be described as a commentator who used to report for various media orgs. As far as I know, since being fired from The Rebel she has not worked for anyone other than herself - she blogs and does speaking gigs, which is much more "pundit" than "reporter". But I'm not going to strongly object to describing her as something like "commentator and reporter" if it moves us past this sticking point. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't agree to "move forward" without a clear explanation of what that means. If you want a prompt reply, try to avoid insulting the person you're responding to by implying they haven't done any research. This is especially ignore-able, since you don't seem to understand what I'm saying and misrepresent my argument as being based on a single source. Since Wikipedia isn't a platform for advocacy or advertising, I don't see any particular reason to change this. Grayfell (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

No problem on the delay, Ivanvector. We all have real lives :)

I don't want to waste your time, but I do not get the "legitimate" point. If your employer hires you as a reporter and you technically act as one by definition, how you are not one? There's no required accreditation like with barristers. And if the dictator Robert Mugabe can be called a "president" on Wiki even though he was only technically elected so... BTW, I haven't checked all her employers, but Sun News also called her a reporter. I just discovered that Lauren Southern Talk page went through a similar debate. Maybe we never agree on this...

I 100% agree she should be called a "commentator and reporter." Her videos are divided between actual (opinionated) reporting and those that are just opinions on the news.

What is she now is an excellent question. From what I see, she acts as an indie reporter/commentator/campaigner in videos where she goes to and reports on a crime scene or a protest, comments and finishes with "Vote for me." The closest compare may be Lauren Southern who is also indie now. She is described as a "Canadian far-right political activist, internet personality, and journalist." Substitute "commentator" for "activist" and that could work, though people may argue "far right" should be in sentence 2. "Internet personality" may be something to consider adding - I can think of pro and con arguments; a recent RightWingWatch article used a similar term. Skingski (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Grayfell, I'm sorry I interpreted your lack of knowledge on Goldy as lack of research. You say I misrepresent your argument as based on a single source. I saw no other argument as to why she should not be called a reporter outside what you summarised as:

"All three sources use significant qualifications when addressing Goldy's status as a reporter." "For Goldy, the term "reporter" is either avoided, or used sarcastically by two of the three sources used for that claim."

The above evidence I supplied from these articles indicates the converse. You say, "I have explained how at least one source specifically refutes her status as a reporter" - however, that one source, The Star, does not say, "Goldy is not a reporter." Indeed, saying she is not a reporter is solely an inferential conclusion based on combining your perceptions in 3 sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources, see WP:SYNTH.

Backing up, you originally asked quite rightly:

"How do reliable sources define her? Do they specifically call her a reporter? Do they cite her reporting? I've not seen any such sources,"

I did the research and gave you the CJN reference and now many more in aggregate in support. Should we spend time trying to hair-splittingly refute all of them?

I wanted to move on to address your 2nd important concern that the term should not be in the lede as in your opinion it was trivia, summarised as:

"In context, none of these sources are strong indicators that she is primarily considered a reporter."

Every reference I supplied introduces/characterises Goldy as a reporter in her first mention - not as "dogcatcher Faith Goldy," "ideologue Faith Goldy," "civil rights activist Faith Goldy" or "Leader of the KKK Faith Goldy," but as "journalist Faith Goldy," etc. Therefore, all these sources primarily identify her as a reporter first and foremost and know that is how their readers know her. Thus, "reporter" belongs in lede sentence 1 - alongside "political commentator."

Finally I agree Wikipedia isn't a platform for advocacy or advertising for the John Tory campaign or hatred of Rebel Media, no matter how much their ""journalism" went from being a joke to being a sick joke." Skingski (talk) 20:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry I interpreted your lack of knowledge on Goldy as lack of research. Give me a break. If that's your idea of an apology, there's not much point in continuing this. It's possible for people to understand a subject and still disagree. If you cannot understand that (or at least pretend to understand that) you are going to have a very difficult time contributing to a collaborative project like Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

So Grayfell apparently accepts the rebuttals and having set out no other grounds for objection, I presume he has none. Therefore, I suppose we can revert sentence 1 to Jane955's prior version of "political commentator and reporter" (restoring the original page description as "journalist", later "investigative journalist" and then "writer").

Ivanvector, on your point, we could reuse what they said in the 1st version of the page adding Rebel: "Canadian right-wing[1] social and political commentator and former reporter for The Rebel Media." That way, we are not saying she isn't still reporting, but reflect what you noted, that she is not currently employed by a news org. We can drop "social" too as I don't think she is presently big on social commentary outside a political context. Skingski (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed, finally, that the Infobox says "Occupation: Political commentator, reporter;" "Known for: Former reporter for The Rebel Media." So this has been the editorial consensus forever and will alter. Skingski (talk) 03:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Label her Far-right?

I think its fair to say we can label her as a far-right for her collaboration with people in the alt-right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry-Oscar 1812 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I would certainly feel perfectly comfortable with labelling her as far-right. After all, she did recite the Neo-Nazi mantra known as the "Fourteen Words" off by heart, and was grinning like a Cheshire cat when she did it. Call me crazy, but I'd say that that is a massive give away.Peadar Ó Croidheáin (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Neither the fact that you conduct an interview to someone nor 'grinning' are objective sources of somebody's political opinion. Please come with some facts and sources. In my opinion labelling her as far right because you do not like her grin would be using Wikipedia a libelling instrument, and we have enough of that as it is. Name the facts, and write those down. Let the readers judge for themselves. AntonHogervorst (talk) 13:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

A cheshire cat? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_forum — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.233.64.184 (talk) 06:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC) What matters is that reliable sources use the "far right" label for her and her work. Nothing else.Newimpartial (talk) 02:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Labeling her as "far right", neo-nazi" or "white nationalist" in the first sentence just because someone has described her as such is ridiculous. Everyone running for political office has received slurs of some kind or other. Whatever happned to BLP?! The article should be unlocked so we can fix it. Darmot and gilad (talk) 07:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The passive "has been described" is not so informative. This article could include how Miss Goldy describes her own politics herself, right? (I am sure the article will be unlocked after the Toronto mayoral election).2A00:11C0:9:996:0:0:1:1 (talk) 11:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Faith Goldy has publicly recited and defended the use of the 14 words, has interviewed with the Daily Stormer and offered public support for the Golden Dawn (an explicitly neo-Nazi party in Greece). She has also publicly praised white nationalist Richard Spencer's "meta-manifesto," in an interview on a well-known alt-right Youtube page.. She has also publicly stated "the future is far-right.". Given all that, I don't think it's appropriate to use the qualifier "has been described as" when using the terms far-right or white nationalist. She is unabashedly far-right, and has been described as a white nationalist by the largest newspaper in Toronto. I also think it's appropriate to include the accusations of her as a Nazi sympathizer and white supremacist, given her prior statements and affiliations. She has been described as such by elected officials in the Ontario legislature just this week.Ossingtonian (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Ossingtonian

"How to label her" is a discussion that we keep having. Please see the newer sections below where this has already been discussed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

References

I hate the term "far right" in that it feels general, relative and not a timeless doctrine like white nationalist or socialist - today's far right may be tomorrow's centre, extreme or farther right. Indeed the far right page encompasses multiple doctrines including White Nationalism, so saying "far right" tells us nothing about her specific beliefs. In an alt right interview she was asked if she was alt right and she said she considers herself "dissident right" - whatever that means. An RWW article (I know, "RWW, boo, hiss!") discusses her "future is far right" tweet and describes her views as toeing "the line between alt-right and New Right."

• Since pinning down what she believes is like nailing jello to the wall, maybe we need a catch-all like "far right" or "right wing"?
• Or say "far right" but not link to the far right page?
• Or are we just using "far right" as a euphemism for "white nationalist", which we say next - in which case it is redundant and can be dropped?
• Or say she is "right wing", but then say critics describe her views as far right and white nationalist? Skingski (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

She has other "far right" beliefs than "white nationalism", so I can't see "far right" being used as a euphemism for "white nationalism". The text should describe her as both "far right" and "white nationalist" until RSes agree on a less broad label for her beliefs. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Engaging in this sort of political views analysis is not a game that Wikipedia should be playing. We should go only by what reliable sources say about this matter, and I listed a number of them in the section this was bumped from (currently near the bottom of the page). It's also a game that prominent figures in this part of the political spectrum play to invent new labels for themselves: "alt-right" is a term Richard B. Spencer adopted so he could refer to his ideology as something other than white supremacist, but we still describe him as that because that's what reliable sources have to say about it. (e.g. [1]) Goldy has called herself many things, "Euro-Canadian Catholic Nationalist" being one of my favourites, but her self-descriptions are meaningless without the support of review by reliable sources, and that label in particular has none. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, that example page does say, "Spencer... considers himself a white nationalist or white identitarian." So his self-description is used. Also, Milo Yiannopoulos page uses his self-description. So self-descriptions can be fine.

It's not obvious what she is. That is illustrated by the fact sources are not unanimous, except in that she is not centre right. Given the most popular descriptors and breadth of her views, I think it fair to keep the sentence as is - "Goldy's views have been described as far-right and [a] white nationalist.[4]" as Curley says EXCEPT the "[a]" seems to have gravitated from "far right" to the word "and".

I also will urge we include her view of what she is.

BTW, the link for the Affinity magazine source below is dead and I can't find it on Wayback. Is there another link? Skingski (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The issue that I have with using Goldy's self-description is it changes over time depending on where you're getting the quote from. In the cases of Spencer and Yiannopoulos, we include some statements they've identified themselves with because there is meaning behind the terms and reliable sources have repeated and analyzed them. In the case of "Euro-Canadian Catholic Nationalist", there are no sources repeating that description, and we shouldn't either. Even if you break it down into parts it's indistinguishable from white nationalism: "Euro-Canadian Nationalism" gets you Google hits for the "Council of European Canadians" (a blog that is plainly promoting white nationalist ideas) and little else. You'll find some reference to Canadian nationalism which is not even close to the same thing. If you look up "Catholic nationalism", you'll pick up news bits about various far-right movements in Europe which, you might have already guessed, are promoting white nationality. I wonder what Goldy could be trying to signal by shoving those two terms together and branding herself with the resulting label? Anyway, we obviously can't use my analysis in the article, and since there aren't any we can use, we should not include the term. In my opinion, at least.

I made some minor fixes to the lede just now, including moving that note back to where it should be. I'll see if I can replace the Affinity link. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Ivanvector, you are right that she changes with time and she just makes up terms ("dissident right"?). The Spencer page delves extensively into his philosophy, but she is not so notable or referenced to do that. I need to put together a coherent response. Can you give me the reference on "Euro-Canadian Catholic Nationalist"? (That's as many adjectives as TNMT) Skingski (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

https://xkcd.com/1412/ (not quite)

lol Skingski (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

That descriptor came from her Twitter bio, which she may have changed. There are a few blogs that repeat it, no reliable sources. Many of these links are awful, just to warn you: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll check them out too. BTW, "convenience break" section below should be archived too. Skingski (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Hrm. Well, I guess I won't be using that archive script again. Thanks for pointing that out. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Characterization of Faith Goldy's Political Views in the Lede

Quote from the Lede:

Goldy's views have been described as far-right[a] and white nationalist.[4]

Right off the bat, the Reader sees what the "mass media" describe her views as, and the natural question from that is "What (or How) does Faith Goldy describe her OWN views?" It's not enough to describe her according to what the media says, first due to the fact that she's a political activist and second because the heart of her politics has to do with allegations of what can be described as "left wing media bias". Failing to include Goldy's own characterization of her own political views and handing it over the allegedly biased mass-media perpetuates the allegations of bias, and makes Wikipedia appear to be complicit in them. A short sentence would suffice.

Personally, my question is whether or not she identifies as a "White Nationalist" or not, given that the word seems to have such "hot" political connotations. But that's just me. I think most people would like to see what the subject of a biographical Article like this one have to say about themselves. She's a public figure; there must be some reliable source that quotes her describing herself.

2605:6000:6961:5E00:FDB8:2191:6665:8F31 (talk) 22:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

By whom her views have been described this way?

"Goldy's views have been described as far-right,[a] white nationalist,[3] and neo-Nazi"

... by her opponents? That is not a neutral encyclopedic article. It's a hit piece to immediately spin the opinion of the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.16.146.62 (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

This has been discussed many, many times. If you have any reliable sources which describe her in different ways, please list them and we'll discuss. This talk page is not a forum to chat about what you think about the article subject. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

"By whom?" is a reasonable question. The second cite for "neo-Nazi" is ultimately attributable to Andrea Horwath and perhaps someone else in her party, it was added without discussion on September 27. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Alright fine, let's do this again. In the BLPN discussion two months ago about exactly this, I wrote:

Goldy describes herself on her own Twitter bio as a "Euro-Canadian Catholic nationalist", both Euro-Canadian and Catholic in this context being plain code for white nationalism, rather than for example the more liberal Canadian nationalism or traditional Christian nationalism. Her Wikipedia article notes that her views "have been described as far-right,^[8][9] white nationalist,^[10] and neo-Nazi,^[11][12]", and notes that she "disagrees with these labels" (her disagreement being cited to a Rebel Media YouTube video which I will neither watch nor link to). Other sources that I've found, the reliability of which I'm unsure of, describe her as:

• Winnipeg Free Press: "Goldy’s forceful defence and the opinions she expressed about the issues that motivated the organizers should be required viewing for anyone looking for insight into the long-term goals of the white nationalist movement", "Goldy is hardly alone in her work to legitimize white extremism" (this is the "opinion piece" currently cited in the article)
• Affinity Magazine: "prominent white nationalist", "self-proclaimed white nationalist", "high-profile alt-right politician"
• Arthur (the Trent University press): "white supremacist", "Catholic nationalist", "alt-right, white supremacist rhetoric"
• National Post: "It is hard to resolve, for example, [Ezra] Levant's rejection of racism with Goldy's appearance on the Krypto Report, a podcast produced by The Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi outlet that advocates genocide."
• National Post: "Goldy’s commentary was sympathetic to the alt-right demonstrators"
• National Post "In an online interview, Goldy called [noted neo-Nazi Richard Spencer's] ideas 'robust' and 'well thought out.'"
• Canadaland: "a proponent of the concept of 'white genocide'"
• Huffpost: "white nationalist", "Goldy has called for a new crusade against Muslims, supports ethno-nationalism and bemoans 'white genocide.'"
• CBC: "anti-immigration speaker", "a woman described as alt-right and a white supremacist sympathizer"
• PressProgress: "Goldy wants Canada to become a 'white ethno-state'"
• Red Ice: "pro-Trump nationalist", "border control advocate"
• Narcity: "white nationalist", "advocate for ethnonationalism"
• The Varsity (the University of Toronto press): "white supremacist", "far-right activist"
• Toronto Star: "far-right activist"
• iPolitics: "the alt-right's useful idiot", "Goldy believes the white race is in the later stages of 'ethnocide'"
• Chatelaine: "Faith Goldy warning about white genocide", "Goldy was on the scene in Charlottesville and appeared to be rooting for the white supremacists"
• Waterloo Region Record: "clear that the speaker [Goldy] values white individuals above all others and she intends to promote this on campus"
• Ricochet: "White supremacist and former Rebel Media host Faith Goldy"
• Torontoist: "a proponent of the concept of 'white genocide'"

If the issue here is that we have not expanded enough on who describes her as these various labels, then I agree that's something we can address. We've attributed Dan Lett, for example. The issue with specific attribution here, maybe except for neo-Nazi, is that there are many reliable sources for each of the labels we use. Are we going to itemize each one, or choose which sources are prominent enough to mention, or is a summary statement along the lines of "she has been described" more appropriate? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps your indenting is wrong. You could recite that list to the IP but it has nothing to do with my comment. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I want to take up her views being "described as... neo-Nazi,[4][5]".

Ref. 4 [RWW] does not mention the word "neo-Nazi" or "Nazi". Neither Ref. 5 [New Republic] nor Selley's National Post bit describe her views as neo-Nazi. New Republic only says she gave "fawning" coverage to neo-Nazis. Selley implies she shares ground with Spencer, whom he labels white nationalist. In the only non-opinion piece, the [Globe and Mail], NDP Leader Andrea Horwath claims Goldy "is tied to neo-Nazi groups," but that her views are "white nationalist" or "supremacist."

So no reference describes her views as neo-Nazi as stated in lede sentence 2. Compare to the 7 references in Ivanvector's list plus Horwath's quote that explicitly say white something-ist or far-right. I advocate the sentence change to:

"Goldy's views have been described as far-right[a] and white nationalist.[4]"

We can consider using Horwath's attack per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, but in the "Municipal politics" section as it relates to the Ford renunciation bit. However, its inclusion may be opposed by issues of undue weight, notability, BLPS rules, etc. Skingski (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The main thing is getting rid of the poorly-sourced suggestion that Goldy has been described as neo-Nazi, but if Greyfell (who put in the dependent-on-Horwath source) insists, I suppose an in-text attributed actual Horwath statement in the Municipal Politics section isn't harmful. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

"Nazi" is a specific ideology; it is also used in a loose sense to refer to any white supremacist. She's clearly a white supremacist, but whether she believes in Nazist or neo-Nazist ideology has not been established by any of these sources, as far as I can tell, and Nazis do not have a monopoly on white supremacism. For that reason, this BLP should avoid using the terms "Nazi" or "neo-Nazi". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

This is all a fair analysis, and I agree. Let's drop neo-Nazi, then. I don't think it's necessary or even really appropriate to use Horwath's quote for this: Horwath is not a political science scholar (or whatever would be an "expert" on this), she is herself a politician, and one who would be expected to be Goldy's opponent. That leaves us with two descriptors, and we've already made up an itemized note comparing "far-right" with "alt-right", we could do the same with "white nationalist" vs. "white supremacist". But maybe it's better to do this with a descriptive paragraph. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLP says poorly sourced contentious material about a living person should be removed immediately, so I removed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The problem with Goldy is that she is not a member or leader in an ideological movement or political party. She has evolving and careless a la carte views. I think in the end, compelling cases can be made for both her claim of being an ethnonationalist like Maxime Bernier and the opposing claim that she is a type of white nationalist. On the other hand, I think white supremacist can be dismissed. We should debate this in a new Talk section. Skingski (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, if there's any question of whether she conforms to the strict definition of a "white supremaicist", then we should be avoiding that, too. Is there any question of whether she's a "white nationalist"? Obviously she's a something, and we just have to figure out the most WP:NPOV wording. I assume "far right" includes "alt-right", and it appears uncontroversial to call her (at least) "far right", so perhaps "far-right white nationalist"? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:22, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

This question is discussed on the Talk page here. I just posted my ideas on it. Skingski (talk) 02:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for not knowing where or how to paste this comment appropriately, but feel compelled to do so. Someone else can correct.

"Euro-Canadian Catholic nationalist", both Euro-Canadian and Catholic in this context being plain code for white nationalism,

This seems irrational to me. I could go long on this, but instead I'll just ask other Editors to consider these words and imagine the stretch of imagination it takes to make the same conclusion. Also, the comment about "plain code" seems unhinged to me.2605:6000:6961:5E00:FDB8:2191:6665:8F31 (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

"Euro-Canadian... nationalist" isn't code for white nationalism; it literally means white nationalism in plain language (in a Canadian context). There isn't anything else it can mean. I don't think "Catholic" affects the meaning of that utterance in any salient way. Newimpartial (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I wrote that sentence and I stand by it. If you look up "euro-canadian nationalist" (try Googling it, "euro-canadian" just gets you currency exchange) what you find is that it's an invented blanket descriptor for an ethnicity of "Canadian people with European ancestry", a set which indiscriminately selects whites from many disparate heritages while excluding Canadians of all other cultural backgrounds (most obviously the Muslims and Jews who are also present in Europe, as well as North American Indigenous peoples, and Asian and Black immigrants from non-European countries). So, in the context of a discussion on ethnonationalism, "Euro-Canadian" is an invented term for a nonexistent singular "white" ethnicity. That's what I meant by "plain code for white nationalism". See also Old Stock Canadians and the Harper controversy: "Euro-Canadian" is another re-spin of the same us-vs-them dog whistle. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Minor point

Is there a reason we list her birthday in the lede? We already have it in the infobox. Skingski (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Infoboxes, like the lead, should summarize the article, and thus are necessarily redundant. The birthday should also be in the body. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Just noticed it is already in the body under "Life and career." I'll remove the first reference then. Skingski (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Skingski: I think you don't quite get that a lead is not an introduction to the article but a summary of the article. Information in the article is supposed to be repeated in the lead; there's a policy or style guide somewhere (maybe the one I linked to?) which states that nothing should be in the lead unless it is also in the body. I think we've had this conversation before. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

MOS:LEADBIO is the more relevant style guide for this situation. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough Skingski (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, surveyed several biography pages. Seems like most only have their birth date in lede sentence 1. Some have it in also in text body. I prefer we err on the side of less words with Goldy. Sounds like I am outnumbered on this. No big deal Skingski (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

You're not understanding why you're "outnumbered". A well-developed article is made up of (a) a body, (b) a lead that summarizes that body (and therefore everything in the lead should also be in the body), and (c) an optional infobox, which also summarizes the body in a different way. The lead gives a quick overview so that people can wrap their heads around the most important details of the subject. The lead is not an "introduciton" to the rest of the article or something. Only in special cases can the lead include something that's not in the body (most often pronunciation information).

Many people never move beyond the lead (perhaps if they've only clicked through briefly while in the middle of reading another article), so key contextual information such as birthdates are expected to be there in the lead. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

You missed what I said. We have the birthdate in the lede where I concede it should be, repeating the same info from the Infobox. As far as a third mention in the text body, I completely understand your position and agree you are technically correct. However, I'm noting that not all Wiki bios include that third mention. As stated, we can keep it as is, no big deal. -- And maybe I should fix any bios without that third mention. Skingski (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Skingski: If there are bios that don't "include that third mention", that's unusual indeed. It's certainly not the accepted practice, for the reasons I've already outlined, and I doubt it was a conscious omission in the cases that do exist. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)