Talk:Faith Goldy/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Goldy's self-described ideologies

Contrary to what I thought, I have not found a claim by her of being an ethnonationalist. From references I've seen so far, I found she gives herself these political labels -

"Nationalist"

"journalist Faith Goldy, a self-described Catholic nationalist" College Fix

"Faith Goldy, a Torontonian who identifies as a nationalist, a Catholic, and an independent journalist" The Atlantic

"NATIONALISTS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE A LIVING??" Periscope video by Goldy

"how Faith and Lauren became nationalists" - Redice interview

"Euro-Canadian Catholic Nationalist" – Goldy's Twitter, captured on e.g., Socialist Party site - Ivanvector, The Atlantic in effect indicates she smooshed together "Catholic" and "Nationalism" for space considerations

"#CanadaFirst: Pro-Trump Nationalist Faith Goldy Running for Toronto Mayor" www.infowars.com/canadafirst-pro-trump-nationalist-faith-goldy-running-for-toronto-mayor/ InfoWars - Not explicitly a direct quote

"Conservative"

"unapologetic conservative" New Pathway

Faith Goldy, described [on her poster]... as “investigative journalist and proud Catholic and conservative.” Daily Hive

"Burkean conservative" [Redice interview] – Burkean is basically nationalism

Her videos may have her identify as conservative too.

Other articles call her conservative, but not explicitly from quotes by her.

"Dissident right"

“dissident-right." [The Atlantic]

"dissident right" - said in interviews with [Redice], NEW RIGHT NETWORK and (I think) Coach Red Pill

(Quick research on this term explains a lot about her)

My first idea is to say she describes herself as a conservative and nationalist in the lede. Under Views, discuss the less familiar "dissident right" label alongside other issues (such as is she really what she thinks she is). Skingski (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I apologise. I missed this section before I posted my own asking about how Faith Goldy describes herself. I'm very new at this, so if someone else wants to combine the two sections I'll be okay with that. Or whatever seems right. I'd like my comments to stay visible, however.2605:6000:6961:5E00:FDB8:2191:6665:8F31 (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

A nationalist for whom? Canadians, last I checked, already have a country. Europeans have several. Even Catholics have a small one. Explaining that Goldy calls herself a bunch of made up stuff doesn't actually help readers identify her ideology. Nonsensical descriptors like this might have some encyclopedic purpose if they are particularly noteworthy (e.g.: Jim Morrison as the "Lizard King"), but we aren't losing anything by leaving them out. Nblund ^talk 23:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Skinkski, there is simply no reason in WP policy or guidelines (BLP or otherwise) to privelege the subject's political self-descriptors. If those are reported by reliable sources, then they may be included (within the constraints of WP:UNDUE) but we follow the reliable sources, not the subject's own labels. Newimpartial (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

My point exactly. I thought I had already replied to this but maybe my edit didn't save, or maybe it's open in an edit conflict window on one of my other computers, oh well. It's not Wikipedia's job to analyze Goldy's words and statements and actions to determine what her political ideology "really is". We use reliable sources for that. As for bias, most sources on a topic like this are going to have some kind of inherent bias; the way we manage that is by reviewing them and determining common elements among disparate sources. We use four sources for "far-right" and two more for "alt-right", all of which mediabiasfactcheck.com rates "high" for factual reporting, and between "left-center biased" (Toronto Star) and "right-center biased" (The Globe and Mail), meaning they have a slight liberal or conservative bias but are reliable sources of news and analysis. The Atlantic and Daily Hive are in the left-center group, while The Rebel and College Fix both fall into their "right bias" category (more biased than the "right-center bias" category) and rate poorly for factual reporting. Going even further, Red Ice is described as an extreme right propaganda/conspiracy site, and Infowars isn't even rated on the same scale (scores "tin foil hat" on their conspiracy meter) - these are unusable sources. Generally speaking, we should favour the points of view of sources which are the least biased, and balance those that are left-of-center against those that are right-of-center, which is what we've done here resulting in the descriptions currently in the article. We don't include Goldy's own self-descriptors because Wikipedia cannot and does not analyze a subject's words, and no reliable sources of such an analysis have bothered.

All of that said, we could use better sourcing in the article for "white nationalist". The source in the lede is not rated, but there's a pretty broad spectrum among other sources that have used "white nationalist" or "white supremacist" to describe Goldy, including both liberal and conservative sources. See the list in the "By whom...?" section further up the page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Nblund, we all agree there is no such term as "Euro-Canadian Catholic Nationalist." I am not saying we should use it. She said it once on Twitter IMO to save space since saying "Catholic and Canadian Nationalist in favor of preserving Western European culture" would put her over the character limit for a tweet back then. She and reporters on her use the terms European, Catholic and nationalist separately everywhere else. So out of this phrase, we should only consider the word "nationalist" - not the whole multi-adjective thingy. Skingski (talk) 03:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

On self-descriptors: It is not a violation of WP:NOR as Wiki policy does allow for its use, see WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:ABOUTSELF. As noted earlier, examples include the Richard B. Spencer and Milo Yiannopoulos pages.

Ivanvector earlier raised a concern that her self-description changes over time. I initially agreed, but after doing research I found it doesn't as seen above. Like some op-eds, I still feel that she shifted her views farther right (some alt-right media claim she is moving back now), but the move is within her own umbrella labels.

On sources: Many are not RS. I only list them to illustrate that she is consistent on her self-descriptions, not for use as citations in the article. Redice, etc. are questionable sources, but she verifiably uses the above terms in their interviews (Similar argument to RWW; also WP:ABOUTSELF). I advocate citing The Atlantic, College Fix and maybe New Pathway. And maybe Daily Hive if needed.

Bias is a continuing issue. It feels like most references are opinions and from the left, whose consensuses we use. Since these are criticisms, we should revert the lede sentence back to "Critics have described her as..."

White nationalist references: The left-leaning Star published articles here and here in which they use this adjective in passing. Skingski (talk) 04:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Can't agree that the "far-right" label is bias is coming from the left: the National Post calls her "far-right" frequently[1][2][3][4][5]—and this is from a publication that used to publish her and whose founder still calls her a friend. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The citations we use tend to be vitriolic attack pieces - the Post is no exception (I have not researched the author's political leaning). An exception is the Maclean piece with Lindsey Shepherd who may/may not be left-wing still. That said, while it is reasonable to say she is far right, shouldn't we characterise who says this - 'She has been described as...' by whom? Not historians or fans - critics or ?. But this is not too important a point. If you want to keep as is - I'm good with that. In reality, any reasonable reader will get this declares an opinion not allied to her base either way. Skingski (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we're going to get away from calling her "right"—it's central to her public perception, and nobody describes her as "centrist", "leftist", or anything non-"right". The farthest we could do is call her "right wing" rather than "far-right" ("far-right" is a subset of "right wing", anyways). Even if we were to do that, I think it's unlikely that "far right" wouldn't creep back into the article as more sources end up describing her that way. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I definitely want to keep "far right;" her ideologies are not understood as centre right. I'm talking about characterising who says it.

As for self-described ideologies, she says she is conservative - maybe called herself right-wing too somewhere, but I don't remember. I favor the conservative bit as it covers her capitalist, religious and family views - she supports traditional (non-Islamist) religion, traditional marriage, etc. Keeping "far right and white nationalist" in the next sentence reveals she is out of step with mainstream conservatism. Skingski (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Calling her "conservative" would introduce a bias in to the article—as you say, she's out of step with mainstream conservativism, and the press favours calling her some version of "right" ("right-wing", "far-right", "alt-right"). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Bias itself is not the test for the use of a self-descriptor per WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:ABOUTSELF.

"Conservative" is not an exceptional claim:

1). Whilst her views on preserving ethnic (or white) majorities are out of step with mainstream thought, they are not contradictory to conservatism and mesh with her nationalist claim.

2). Her other social/economic views are mostly (all?) mainstream conservative - e.g., on guns, policing, traditional marriage, etc. - probably why conservatives endorsed or tacitly endorsed her.

Variations on the political label "right" lack the connotation of "conservative" IMHO -- right wing politics is more political philosophy, whilst conservatism concerns traditional values/social institutions.

After using her self-labels, we then provide the necessary contrast with what most critics say she is - that she is more than just to the right (far right) and more than just nationalist (white nationalist). Skingski (talk) 03:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the relevant condition is that the claims "should not be unduly self-serving". Goldy wants to present herself as conservative, but that claim is contentious at best. Nblund ^talk 18:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

First, we accept her self-label of "nationalist," yes?

Second, as we know, "self-serving" means "serving one's own interests often in disregard of the truth or the interests of others" or " any cognitive or perceptual process that is distorted by the need to maintain and enhance self-esteem, or the tendency to perceive oneself in an overly favorable manner."

She consistently called herself conservative prior to and after Charlottesville - so it is not a new position. But has she switched ideologies and only clings to this label which is now overly favorable (assuming conservative is favorable) and in disregard of the truth?

The op-ed you cite (I hope it is RS as I planned to use this later) does not dispute she was conservative. He writes, "I had unhappily noted her departure from conservatism [with Charlottesville] and subsequent embrace of (and by) the alt-right." More specifically, the author regarded Goldy as a (mainstream) conservative who went to the alt right.

If we accept his opinion as fact, the Wikipedia definition of alt right includes conservative ideologies (e.g., paleoconservatism). Therefore, her claim of being conservative can be still true, even if as a repugnant form to the author. Again, we are not arguing she is conservative (though it meets Wikipedia definitions), only that she is close enough that her claim is not extraordinary and therefore, self-serving.

Finally, her claim of falling under the conservatism umbrella does not contradict her stated views.

All that said, I infer that your description as "self-serving" reflects a view that her current use of the label is not wrong, but intentionally deceptive to frame her contemporary views as mainstream to appeal to most conservatives. For that, we could instead use her more specific self-label of "Burkean conservative." Alternatively, we could just use "nationalism" for now, work on "Views" and return to this point after. Skingski (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

"Burkean conservatism" is especially nuts. - Burke is usually cited by the Russel Kirk/William F. Buckley branch of conservatism that has long opposed the far right. Burke is mostly associated with moderates like David Brooks and John McCain. Using this to describe Goldy would be wildly misleading. So far I haven't seen any compelling reason to think that "far right", "alt-right" and/or "white nationalist" don't do a perfectly adequate job of capturing her views. Nblund ^talk 19:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Interesting IMO that a neocon in McCain and especially Brooks could be identified with Buckley and Burke, but to the left-leaning Times, maybe not a surprise. Neocon seems antithetical to Burke's key argument on cultural preservation.

But again, this section is not about supplanting far right and white nationalist with conservative. This is about adding what she believes, not what we do. In any case, sounds like we should move to "Views" and return to this point later.

I'll go ahead and insert "nationalist" as a self-label. Skingski (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Ethnicity

@Dash9Z: before you and Grayfell undergo a third or fourth round of edit warring, please address his concern about why this info on her needs to be in the article. Skingski (talk) 00:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I assume this is about these edits, which I already pmostly reverted. The burden is on you to gain consensus for changes, especially controversial, promotional ones like this.

What does this have to do with "ethnicity"?

In addition to adding an unreliable source, you also added a source which did not mention Goldy at all. This is a clear indication that this factoid is not significant to Goldy's political career. Further, I do not understand why you misrepresented the this link as "usurped", but this is incorrect and inappropriate. There is also the problem with your use of "excluded", which is loaded in this context, as it implies that Goldy had some special right to be included in these debates. The fact that reliable sources failed to take Goldy seriously as a candidate is not a problem for Wikipedia to solve. Grayfell (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Grayfell: This section has nothing to do with our fight. This is about Dash9Z persistently adding that she is Ukrainian and Greek and you removing it. I have no opinion on this issue. Skingski (talk) 01:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Debates with Goldy

@Grayfell: Continuing from prior section: OK, so the easy one - "usurp" -- the citation we used was changed by the Global News when they archived it. They scrubbed all mention of Goldy. So, I am using an archived version off Wayback Machine. I have no idea what we should say instead of usurped. Ideas? Skingski (talk) 01:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

On your second point - how are they controversial? No one disputes she was not invited to any of the debates. But it's your opinion apparently. You think she was and everyone who says she was not is lying? Promotional? That sounds like your opinion. Saying someone was not invited to something usually suggests they must be an awful person. 1). The link on the third debate shows she is not on the list of debaters. Ergo, she was excluded from the list actively or not. This video interview with the organisers has them telling Goldy she was not invited to it as she did not meet their criteria. If we can use this, great! Maybe we can. Skingski (talk) 01:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

2). Global News is an RS.

3). You say: "excluded"... implies that Goldy had some special right to be included in these debates. Actually she did. Mayoral candidates normally expect to be in mayoral debates. Clearly, the organisers had to set out criteria so that they wouldn't have 32+ people onstage. So clearly, she was not the only one excluded from the debate. Please nominate a different synonym? Skingski (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Skingski: First, self-revert, so we can discuss this civilly. As I've already explained, the burden is on you to gain consensus for controversial changes, and at least two editors have already challenged these edits. Grayfell (talk) 01:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah, okay, nothing, eh? To avoid filibustering, I'm hoping there will be a prompt response, as civil POV pushing is still POV pushing. I assume that any follow-up from you will be on the talk page, as you are insistent on.

Not everything which can be sourced belongs in an article. We all agree on this, right? We're not an indiscriminate collection of information. The way we decide what belongs and what doesn't is through proportional coverage in reliable sources.

"Ravingcanuck" is not a reliable source, even if might be factually accurate in some cases. Just because it supports a detail doesn't mean that we have to included that detail. Hopefully it's obvious why, but including an unreliable political gossip site in a BLP is unacceptable, no matter how correct it happens to be.

Nobody is disputing that Global News is an RS, and phrasing it like this badly misrepresents the problem. A source which doesn't mention Goldy should not be used for information about Goldy without a very good reason. It is WP:SYNTH to attach a source to a claim which the source doesn't supported. The source doesn't mention Goldy, so we cannot lie and imply that it does mention Goldy. We cannot allow some synth to slide by just because an editor thinks it's helpful. Her campaign was already described by many experts as a political publicity stunt. Using sources which do not even mention her name to imply significance to a detail is an abuse of sources to aid her publicity. This is wrong for multiple reasons.

Since Global News is RS, we cannot misrepresent it by saying that the domain has been usurped. This is an unusual situation, but instead of trying to fudge the templates, we first need to address the underlying issue. If the archived version is the only version which mentions Goldy, that's a another indication that this is WP:UNDUE. As for her poling in third, using an archived version of a local news blurb for a promotional quote stripped of context is among the more blatant examples of cherry-picking I've seen on Wikipedia. We are not a platform to document every trivial detail of every publicity stunt she's participated in. If no better source mentions her protest, it wasn't that important after all. Alternately, wait for reliable sources to be published, since we're not a news agency and its reasonable to think this will be discussed in future academic publications on the far-right in Canada.

Your opinion that she is entitled to participate in a debate is still just an opinion. This article is about Goldy, not Goldy's failed campaign, not the Toronto mayoral election, 2018. It's not appropriate to use editorializing language to imply that she was unfairly excluded, instead of not invited. Grayfell (talk) 02:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Since there has been no response, I have again reverted. The source is unreliable, due weight has not been demonstrated, and editorializing language is not appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 03:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Election results map

There are some issues with the ward-by-ward results map that has been added by Mr.Election (File:Toronto mayoral election, 2018 results by ward - Faith Goldy vote share.svg). For one, the scale is wrong, it indicates that Goldy received a negative vote share in ward 11, which is impossible. Her highest vote share was 5.42% in ward 2, and lowest was 1.98% in ward 11. Since there are 5 bars in the scale it should probably be 2-6%. @Mr.Election: you seem to have the same problem with File:Toronto mayoral election, 2018 results by ward.svg with a negative 50% for John Tory's scale. Can you fix these issues and upload new versions of your maps? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Mayoral Campaign

Since this page is locked, I can't add this,but I think it's relevant to note her campaign was endorsed by avowed white supremacist Congressman Steve King from Iowa (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rep-steve-king-slammed-by-fellow-gop-colleagues-for-white-supremacist-remark) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlewsClews (talk • contribs) 22:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks,and, yes, the same assertion is made in King's article, backed by another RS. Will add it to Goldy article. Note that we bottom-post on Talk pages. Using the "new section" tab automates the posting process somewhat.--Quisqualis (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

White Genocide

Why the recent edits to claim Goldy only "allegedly" believes in white genocide? She's repeated the 14 words. How is that not enough to be sure she supports the claim of white genocide? BlewsClews (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The two are both tropes of similar ideologies. But you're inferring something that isn't actually there in the original source, which is WP:OR. I'd suggest removing references to White genocide as it's not in the sources, find a second party valid source for it. Irishpolitical (talk) 08:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

YouTube subscribers - edit request

Drg2010 - Why is the Faith Goldy page not available for extended editing? I want to add on Youtube 97,719 subscribers. qv — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drg2010 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Drg2010: although I know these are often in articles, it's rare that they are encylopedic - even worse, rare that they are accurate. Google "buying youtube subscribers" and "buying youtube views". Doug Weller talk 18:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember this having been already discussed, I thought here but I can't find it, maybe it was a more general discussion. Anyway, social media follower counts are rarely accurate, rarely reflect the actual size of a content creator's real audience, and generally aren't an encyclopedic metric (they can't be readily compared to other creators' follower counts, owing to the first two points). Views might be relevant if a reliable third-party source (i.e. not taken from YouTube itself) record the statistic, in the way that television shows' Nielsen ratings can have encyclopedic value, but I don't think YouTube does that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Citation needed

It looks like there needs to be a citation added for the claim "Her contract was terminated in 2017 after she appeared in an interview on The Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi website." in the introductory paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahuterschuter (talk • contribs) 21:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

There are two cites for it in the body. The lead doesn't normally need cites, as it is supposed to summarize the body—but if it's important to you, feel free to copy the cites in the body to the lead. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 July 2019

Add in "Municipal Politics":

On April 29, 2019, Toronto's compliance audit committee decided to audit Goldy's campaign expenditures. The complainant argued that a YouTube video she posted on October 25, 2018, soliciting donations for her legal battle against Bell Media, amounted to a request for campaign contributions which may have contravened Ontario law restricting donations to residents of the province. Asherbonpal (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Family

Faith Goldy married Josef Viezner in December 2018. In June 2020 she gave birth to their first child, Roman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Putinalias (talk • contribs) 15:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

”white supremacist” not true

I find it funny that you can edit tory’s wiki page but not faiths 🤔 AlmightyCassius (talk) 02:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@AlmightyCassius: if you'd clicked on the lock icon you would have seen "Semi-protected pages cannot be edited by unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as accounts that are not autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least four days old and have made at least ten edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed." No big deal. Doug Weller talk 13:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)