Jump to content

Talk:Faith Goldy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 109.225.103.169 (talk) at 22:02, 29 August 2018 (no personal attacks. has nothing to do with the article WP:PA WP:TPG "Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal."). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 ([1]) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • Just to note: when AntonHogervorst left this comment a year ago, the article looked like this, and then he trimmed the duplicated sentences himself ([2]) 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Faith_Goldy&oldid=857151708"