Talk:Faith Goldy/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Faith Goldy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

I removed cites to a website named Right Wing Watch. Greyfell re-inserted them. Is there a consensus that the cites are okay i.e. Right Wing Watch is a reliable source for this BLP? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Sources can be useful for some content but not other content, even within the same article, and even within a BLP. Nothing about this site seems like it is WP:ELNEVER, so this must be judged in context just like most sources. What is the specific issue with these points, and why do you say that People for the American Way is not qualified to explain these specific points? Grayfell (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I have removed this source as a citation for her being described as neo-Nazi. The source doesn't use this phrase, and while some other articles from RWW do, this doesn't appear to be treated as a defining trait by the outlet. Grayfell (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

In a BLP—particularly a contentious one—we should err on the side of non-inclusion for any sources that have been questioned in good faith. The restoration of the RWW source should be undone until a consensus can be achieved on its reliability.

We should also not be using Goldy's website as a source—how do we determine the WP:WEIGHT of whatever facts that have been cherrypicked from there? We need outside sources to do that. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

For RWW, the sources were presumably added in good faith, also. As a show of good faith I have commented them out for now. There has been no specific explanation for why these sources are a problem, and I do not think that's an unreasonable expectation. Just mentioning the name of an outlet and expecting that to speak for itself is not helpful. Grayfell (talk) 00:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Right Wing Watch is a mouthpiece for the People for the American Way, which is an advocacy group. I don't think anyone questioned the good faith of the addition—only whether it was truly appropriate, and that a BLP should have an exceptionally high threshold for inclusion of sources. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Mouthpiece? I suppose you could call them that. From what I have seen they are exactly what it says on the box. There are definite weight issues with advocacy groups. Being an advocacy group doesn't actually make a source unreliable, however. One example of this I've used a lot recently is medical organizations like the AMA. They advocate for healthy behaviors, policy changes, and so on, but are still reliable sources for factual information on medical conditions. Likewise, and advocacy group can be a reliable source for factual information about extremist political activities. Of course this comparison doesn't always work, but it still shows the problem with making generalizations. Using RWW to support the specific month Goldy was banned from Patreon (for example) doesn't seem inappropriate or even particularly controversial. Grayfell (talk) 01:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

No, but if we have other sources that are not from advocacy groups, they should be favoured. "Mouthpiece" was just the first word that popped into my head—if it's an objectionable term, mentally replace it with something else. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Skingski (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Grayfell says I said something about People for the American Way; that's false. Grayfell says a source can be "useful"; that's irrelevant, what's being questioned is whether this website is reliable. Where is (using WP:RS + WP:IRS wording) the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", the evidence of "editorial oversight", or that it's a "news organization" rather than a "self-published source"? Who says the authors are "regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject"? What (using WP:BLP wording) shows that it is "high-quality"? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

An extremist blog like RWW is not ideal as you say - it is self-serving and not completely reliable. However, Goldy gets little press. So if the fact is not in dispute and not available from a better source as is often the case, why not use RWW? Grayfell notes the Patreon example. Rather than directly cite Goldy's video/twitter (a dubious idea), we use RWW who reports on her words. The sentence on this seems fairly NPOV too. If a better source exists (currently I only see political commentaries, not articles), then OK. If balance is a concern, we could hunt for an established right-wing blog to also cite. If RWW's statement is in dispute, then let's discuss vs. a blanket removal. Skingski (talk) 03:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

"we could hunt for an established right-wing blog to also cite"—uh ... no. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

My opinion on this matches Grayfell's: RWW is certainly an advocacy group with a bias, but when they're reporting on uncontroversial factual info like Goldy's suspension from Patreon, it's acceptable to use as a source. I mean, nobody is saying she wasn't banned from the site. But at the same time it's problematic to use such a source to cite, say, Goldy's political position, absent other sources making the same argument. It's not InfoWars I guess is what I'm saying - it can be useful in context. On the subject of the Patreon ban, I also found a piece by Canadaland which is a "media criticism" outlet which I believe tends to skew left (in the sense that Canadian mainstream media tends to skew right) but has an editorial board (and which Goldy herself called "unwashed gossip bloggers" in a now-deleted tweet), and one in The Unshackled, a "free speech" blog which is most certainly right wing but which I know pretty much nothing about. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Nobody tried to answer the questions so I take it there's no dispute that Right Wing Watch is a low-quality non-RS considering the BLP context, but three editors want to keep the mention of the Patreon ban. Is that all? There are solutions without blatantly violating all three of WP:RS and WP:BLP and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. (1) Leave it uncited, assuming Ivanvector is right and will always be,^{([citation needed] Ivanvector (Talk/_Edits))} so nobody will care that there's no cite. (2) Cite The Globe and Mail although it only mentions the ban and not Goldy's reaction. (3) Cite Goldy's twitter feed and/or the YouTube post at "youtu.be/yRfBvDH4jrs" (the youtube url cannot be linked but can be mentioned). Skingski called this "a dubious idea" but WP:BLPSPS allows it and WP:IRS recommends it: "To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted." This is the original source that Right Wing Watch used. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

"After being banned by Patreon for her advocacy of the slogan, Goldy defended her views. This included gathering signatures on a public petition, which replaced "white children" with "aboriginal children", to attempt to demonstrate the slogan was not hate speech."—we can source that Goldy was banned from Patreon to (at least) the G&M and HuffPost, but I can find no source for her reaction outside of RWW. This should be dropped. If the MSM can't even be bothered to report on this, then aside from the other BLP concerns, we have serious WP:WEIGHT issues with including it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

So we have two things: that Goldy was banned from Patreon, which is properly sourced and not controversial (again, nobody is saying she was not banned), and Goldy's reaction, which we can only so far find sourced to an advocacy group's blog which itself seems to be referenced to Goldy's own statements. So, include the ban but not her reaction? I'm of the opinion that we should include the ban, since at the time it was her primary source of income and her being banned from it did make an impression in mainstream sources. And if we do include it, then do we include her reaction and attribute it to her directly (cite her Twitter?) or do we just not mention her reaction at all since better sources didn't pick up on it? Is it a WEIGHT problem if we mention the ban but not her reaction? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

If it's a WEIGHT issue (which I doubt) then that would be an argument for dropping it all (we don't include everything on a subject simply because there's a source). I don't see anything particularly notable about her reaction, though, so I don't see it as an issue.

Fringe figures all have this problem—they have just enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, but not enough to make for a truly comprehensive article without significantly lowering the bar for quality of sourcing. We just have to accept that these sorts of articles will always be shitty and incomplete. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

(New subsection since we seem to be veering into this discussion)

I agree with Ivanvector - though we actually have 3 things - why she was banned. Strictly quoting her for her reaction seems uncontroversial (Gulutzan suggests using Twitter), but framing, selective use of quotations and us turning into reporters of her are dangers. But I also agree with Curly on reference/weight issues. How important is the issue? How much space do we dedicate to it for a fringe figure? - so my head hurts. (Canadian mainstream media skews right?) Maybe it all works out as we focus/pare down the article.

On the ban, Curly, can you direct me to the HuffPost reference? The G&M screed is published in a source that is more notable than RWW, Unshackled and Canadaland, but does not explicitly mention the 14 words. However, The Unshackled does link to Goldy's video showing Patreon's e-mail explaining the ban.

Other comments:

1). Under "Life and career", we mention the 14 words and Patreon ban and then reiterate this info under "Views/Fourteen Words". Since this is an event in her career not a view, shouldn't the latter paragraph be merged into the former?

2). "...she was also banned from the online payment system PayPal, also in connection with her recitation and defense of the Fourteen Words." - Do we have any evidence for the claim that PayPal acted due to the 14 Words? (Also, the English is bad! "also" "also"? ;)

3). This Daily Beast review seems fairly objective, is written by a reporter and covers the PayPal and FreeStartr debacles. It would shore up current ref. 23, ThinkProgress.

3). On 14 Words, current ref. 25 from SPLC is a news aggregation site, not an article, that only gives a link to the criticised RWW story. I favor 25's deletion.

Current ref. 26, the Varsity petition, is a citation we previously said was unusable in regards to a separate issue. Is it appropriate here, especially in light of Gulutzan and Curly's remarks?

4). Is it important to include the words from the "most commonly used" 14 Words slogan since we link to it anyway? It just adds more words to the article. Skingski (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

To be specific, I suggest winnowing "Goldy has supported the Fourteen Words,[25][26][27] reciting the most commonly used slogan 'We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children'" - to something like - "Goldy supported the most commonly used Fourteen Words slogan,[25][26][27]" Skingski (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Here's the HuffPost ref. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:56, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

A large majority accepted SPLC's Hatewatch blog as a reliable source for BLPs in a WP:BLPN discussion but before moving to a different topic I'd like it clear about the original question "Is there a consensus that the cites are okay i.e. Right Wing Watch is a reliable source for this BLP?" I gather that the answer is: no. Greyfell has maintained them as comments, I suppose that's okay. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The use of comments was intended to be temporary.

Reliability generally does not work on a simple pass/fail system. With some exceptions, Wikipedia judges each source in context. Sources which may be unusable for some claims might be fine for others. Outlets might publish both usable and unusable material, also.

Asking if "Right Wing Watch is a reliable source for this BLP?" is too broad. If you believe this outlet has a negative reputation comparable to WP:DAILYMAIL, you could propose this at WP:RSN, but they're going to bring up WP:CONTEXTMATTERS as well. Every use of source needs to be evaluated within its context, and even Daily Mail is usable for some things.

Per WP:USEBYOTHERS, Right Wing Watch has been cited by many other reliable outlets, such as NYT, Miami New Times, Snopes Vox, NPR, and so on. Other than the aggregate link from SPLC, I haven't found any second-hand citations about Goldy, but the frequency of use by reliable outlets is still an indicator that RWW has a positive reputation. Therefor each RWW source should not be dismissed merely because of the name of the website that's hosting it. Grayfell (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I opposed the WP:DAILYMAIL ban and I believe that context can matter, but you didn't show that it actually does matter (saying a group"can be" RS or saying the AMA is RS or claims "might be fine" is not doing that). I acknowledge that others have quoted Right Wing Watch, but don't know why you call them all "reliable outlets", Miami New Times has been found to be unreliable before, and note that Vox merely quotes a Jared Holt opinion, it should take a lot more than that to overcome the objections, and nothing points to a "positive reputation", au contraire read: "Right Wing Watch does occasionally take statements out of context and they sometimes source to far left sources. Overall, this is a left biased website that is mixed for factual reporting." Anyway, everyone has seen your arguments; everyone has seen my objections; if somehow you have convinced them all, they can say so explicitly and you'll have at least local consensus, if they don't then you don't. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Mediabiasfactcheck.com is a blog run by Dave Van Zandt. I see it cited a lot on talk pages and in edit summaries by editors trying to prove a point, but I have not seen any outside demonstration of reliability, one way or the other. You removed all citations to RWW without regard to context. The closest thing to an explanation for this action you have provided is your edit summary Removed cites to a website named "Right Wing Watch", BLPs need RSs. I am explaining that the name of the website doesn't disqualify a source, and you cannot ignore context and remove a site you don't like without explaining why. Further, each usage will need to be discussed on its own merits. The outlet is not inherently unreliable, so you will have to explained why these sources are not reliable. Listing the wbesite name as though it were self-evident is not enough, and retroactively going back and digging up RFCs for unreliable websites is not helpful. As we've already discussed, a site which openly explains its ideology (such as advocacy organizations) is not automatically less reliable than one which doesn't.

The burden is still on you to explain why the entire site is so unreliable that it cannot be used at all.Grayfell (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

After Greyfell made a false claim about me and ignored my policy-related questions, I helped dispose of the only context matter that Greyfell specifically objected about (Patreon) and I said that my concern is this BLP which is a statement about context, so the accusation that I ignored context is false. It is also false that the burden is on me. Perhaps Curly Turkey was alluding to this, I'll point to it: WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Now, once again: "I removed cites to a website named Right Wing Watch. Greyfell re-inserted them. Is there a consensus that the cites are okay i.e. Right Wing Watch is a reliable source for this BLP?" If possible, could other parties please say yes or no. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

My explicit opinion is I have no further interest in this side discussion, as this general debate about the general reliability of one source is off-topic and distracting from actually dealing with specific issues with this specific article. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• I find myself agreeing with Skingski's original post in this subsection. Her Fourteen Words advocacy seems to be a one-off at least as far as reliable sources are concerned. Since we're mentioning under "life and career" that her recitation of the slogan was the cause of her ban from the various funding websites (I'll get to sourcing in the next 'graph) then it's not so important that we need to mention it again under "views". Plus, it's not really a "view" (which I interpret as political positions) - it's just a thing she did. But that does leave us with a "views" section which is just white nationalism. That might be appropriately balanced, though, given who we're talking about.

As for sourcing the various claims: it seems that according to Patreon she was banned for "violating their community guidelines on hate speech" (reported by HuffPost, The Daily Beast, and of course Right Wing Watch, among many other unusable blogs). It's Goldy's own interpretation that the ban is directly related to the Fourteen Words, per the video hosted by RWW; RWW seems to be the only outlet that's bothered to report on that directly, but others like ThinkProgress and SPLC have repeated RWW's interpretation. So, assuming we're going to include this, we can:

1. say that Goldy was banned from Patreon for violating the website's guidelines (various RS) and leave it at that; or
2. say she was banned, and that according to her she was banned for reciting the slogan. In this case I think we would have to use the RWW article as the source for Goldy's own words, as it does repeat them, and maybe that's just not good enough sourcing to include.

And so I'm leaning towards #1. Also, our article Charles C. Johnson (Freestartr's creator) uses Forward and The Daily Beast as sources for Freestartr's PayPal ban, as a point of interest. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

#1 is the best solution until a RS gets around to explicating things. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

As another point of interest, today I found this G&M piece, written about a week ago, clearly editorial but in a publication with strong editorial oversight, which also draws a connection between Goldy's defense of the Fourteen Words as the reason behind her suspension from PayPal and Patreon. "A few months later, on another so-called alt-right show, she recited another white-supremacist phrase, asking why it should be “so controversial.” After that, she was kicked off of PayPal and the crowd-funding platform Patreon." Is this substantial enough RS coverage for #2 above? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

G&M doesn't mention the "14 words" specifically and reduces her defense to 2 words. "After that" doesn't mean "Because of that." If we could infer "because," is it because of the 14 words, a poor excuse for saying it or both? (A long time gap exists between the Dec. 2017 video and the May 2018 ban, which may be why "because" is not used) I also have seen no evidence PayPal banned her for the 14 words. Also as we know, the PayPal ban was after Patreon. Skingski (talk) 16:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

You're right about "after that". G&M doesn't mention the Fourteen Words directly, but it's clearly the "it" that Goldy wondered why it should be "so controversial". That was in her own words in Right Wing Watch. Is it too far into WP:SYNTH to make that connection? And yeah, she wasn't banned from PayPal, she was banned from Patreon and then shifted to Freestartr, and then Freestartr was banned from PayPal. Balkissoon is either mistaken or just summarizing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

It is the "it." But the G&M author considers the slogan itself unimportant or keeps it anonymous to avoid explaining Goldy's rebuttal. She only calls it "another white supremacist phrase," leaving the readers to guess what phrases were said and when. With 2 different versions of the Fourteen Words (so we should preserve "commonly used" in the final edit), a reader who correctly intuits it was the 14 Words can't be sure which one was used.

Goldy's account was banned by PayPal per this blog for "the nature of her activities" with a link to a commentary on her Patreon video. Then she joins Freestartr and they get banned by PayPal. Skingski (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The G&M piece is already in the article citing the ban (in fact, I think I was the one who added it). Part of the "which fourteen Words?" problem may simply be that our Fourteen Words article is poorly written. As far as I can tell, "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children" is the original and most common version, and alternative versions derive from it. The Fourteen Words article should be more clear about that; it's not something we should split hairs about at this article.

As for WP:SYNTH—if we have to even ask whether this is SYNTH, that should be reason enough to stay away in a BLP. She said the Fourteen Words. She was banned from Patreon. We don't say anything else until an RS unambiguously says there's a connection. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

That's a reasonable approach re: SYNTH. As for "which" Fourteen Words she actually said, it doesn't really matter, it was obvious that it was intended to be and was interpreted as the infamous neo-Nazi dog whistle, even if there might have been a word or two out of place. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Curly, and he is prolly right about the 14 Words article. Its lede even has a bizarre conspiracy theory for a 3rd version. The 2 slogan versions are substantively different. The common one is for sure shared by neo-Nazi and white racial and racist groups while the second invoking "Aryan" sounds more neo-Nazi-focussed with its implicit exclusion of certain kinds of whites. We should discuss her intent in a different Talk page section maybe. Skingski (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Since we know which version she actually cited (it's been quoted in any number of sources, hasn't it?), why don't we just quote the version she said and remove all ambiguity? Then we don't have to worry about the quality of the article linked to (of course, link to it as well). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

There were no explicit yes or no replies. There is no consensus. Right Wing Watch doesn't fit the criteria for an RS, but it was emphasized that it could be treatable as an RS in some context anyway. There is no dispute about that, and Greyfell is welcome to seek consensus by providing an in-context case where it is appropriate to use it for a statement in this BLP, I cited the first "banned by Patreon" statement to the Globe and Mail, and removed the second statement about Patreon (in the 14 words section) for now, because for now it's poorly sourced. If it needs mentioning, a better YouTube cite for Faith Goldy would be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8C4Dcj4sY. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Given Ivanvector, my and others' suggestions in the prior section, can we work a draft here for a final edit of the Patreon paragraph in "Life and career"? I'm unclear that we should keep "Views/Fourteen Words" if we move this event into "Life and career" as proposed. Skingski (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Goldy is making a claim about a third party when she says in the Youtube video that the Patreon representative referred to her use of fourteen words, so WP:BLPSELFPUB says we can't use that. But the statement in the "Life and Career" section could have the words "After she recited the white-nationalist slogan the Fourteen Words ...". I removed that because it wasn't in the source that we definitely can cite (Globe and Mail). If you think I went too far by removing that clause, tell me and I'll put it back. Otherwise, the "Life and Career" section is okay. Much of the "fourteen words" stuff is from a recent edit, I don't know whether it's proper to inform the editor that in effect we'd be reverting it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a shot. In Life and career:

And in Views, remove the Fourteen Words section entirely, as well as the "white genocide" header. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Gulutzan, actually Goldy's video has a screen shot of the Patreon e-mail which states the 14 Words as cause. However, she implies vis a vis this and other bans and the time gap between recitation and ban that Patreon, etc. banned her for reasons beyond the 14 Words. But no Patreon response exists. So I'm fine with whatever everyone decides on this. Skingski (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Ivanvector, I like your version/suggestions. I am bothered by GQ's quoting a little; however, if a reader looks up the 14 Words, it seems reasonable they will get what she means in her defence. I just noticed the common 14 Words was by a white supremacist, not neo-Nazi; but this may be splitting hairs as David Lane (white supremacist)'s bio indicates he was both. However, the page does say the 14 Words are the "slogan of the American white supremacist movement".Skingski (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

For references:

For 14 Words, drop The Varsity reference (the 14 Words are mentioned within a petition) and add Newsweek reference:

"...recited the Fourteen Words, ^[GQ],ref name=Newsweek>Hayden, Michael Edison (April 16, 2018). "Ann Coulter Retweets White Nationalist Charlotesville Leader Who Attacked Trump With Syria Conspiracy Theory". Newsweek. Retrieved October 4, 2018.</ref> - yes, Newsweek misspelled Charlottesville

For her PayPal ban:

"...from the online payment system PayPal that July. ref name=DailyBeast>Sommer, Will (August 21, 2018). "Far Right Fuming After Big Finance Chokes Off Money Flow". Daily Beast. Retrieved October 4, 2018.</ref

Add Beast and Forward for Freestartr ban:

"...leaving her unable to receive payments.^{[ThinkProgress]},[ref name=DailyBeast/], ref>Fisher, Alyssa (July 24, 2018). "Far-Right Organizations Get Banned From PayPal, Beg Followers For Help". The Forward. Retrieved August 28, 2018.</ref> Skingski (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that Ms Goldy says the screenshot is of what Patreon sent, it's a claim about a third party and that is why I mentioned it's not acceptable. I don't see any of the possible sources saying "neo-Nazi slogan". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Whether it's "neo-Nazi" or not, it's indisputably white supremacist, so we should go with that wording. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

How about this:

I've switched up "white supremacist" for "neo-Nazi", quoted the 14 Words, and tried to make it clear that the "I don't see that as controversial" quote was part of the podcast, not some rebuttal that came after she was called out. I've got a question: why "separately"? Does this imply that the banning from Patreon and PayPal were somehow linked? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Is Metro a RS? If it is, we've got a source for the PayPal banning in July.[1] Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Is the Canadian Jewish News an RS? If so, we've got a source explicitly stating the Patreon and PayPal bans were due to reciting the 14 Words.[2] Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The "Controversial" quote is to rebut those who see it as controversial. As before, I prefer saying "commonly used" like on Lane's page ("Lane coined the best-known slogan of the American white supremacist movement, the Fourteen Words") to repeating the slogan. But Curly's version reads very well, so I'm good with or without.

Curly, did you see my reference suggestions?

We used CJN before; I like it for what it is. I forgot its line on the bans. It allows us to connect events if everyone likes it. Except it still may be prey to Gulutzan's criticism. Though I don't see it. Neither Goldy's video nor this article is really a third party claim as it concerns the party with whom she directly dealt (Patreon), not a party Patreon deals with (e.g., their bank).

I prefer Beast to Metro on substance, but why not use both for her PayPal account ban.

Change "Separately" to "Later"

Grammar correction: "...Patreon account, had itself been shut out of PayPal" change to: "...Patreon account, was itself shut out of PayPal" Skingski (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I won't criticize CJN and won't argue re "third party" since I guess it's moot. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I like Curly Turkey's proposal. I don't know about Metro (about page) but on a quick look the source appears like we can use it. CJN is generally considered reliable, but for this particular use it might be a good idea to pass it through RSN - it is a Jewish publication commenting on a personality with connections to antisemitism. I also agree with dropping the Varsity reference: I don't agree with the objection over its use because of the petition, but it's redundant to GQ for this. If we're going to accept CJN as a source then we will need to rework a bit, but do we have agreement to go ahead for the time being? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Hasn't anybody read my boring summation on references? Aside from GQ, we have Newsweek, which is less of a screed. Oy vey! Skingski (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

How does this look?

- and delete the 14 Words bit in "Views" and make changes in that section per Ivanvector.

I add Stripe as it like PayPal was a way she could get paid (see Beast and Forward articles). I'm not married to keeping it in though if no one likes it. Skingski (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I might try to tighten the wording a tad, but I'm fine with this. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I find "as a result of her recitation" awkward, and come to think of it I'm also not sure that Patreon is most accurately described as a crowdfunding site, but let's not dwell on that. How about: "Crowdfunding site Patreon suspended her account in May 2018^[Balkissoon] over reciting the slogan,^[CJN] and she was subsequently banned from PayPal that July.^{[Daily Beast]/[Metro]}" Everything else looks good to me, but should wikilink Stripe (company). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Skingski, your suggestion is an improvement, thanks. I don't see the awkwardness but Ivanvector's amendment would be okay too. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia categorizes Patreon as a "Crowdsourced funding" site and a "membership platform" (description lifted from Patreon's site). I'm fine with whatever we call it. - We don't call Stripe or PayPal anything though. Should we or does the wikilink take care of it?

Yes, Wikilink Stripe.

"Recitation" was awkward to me too; "As a result"/"As a result of this" seemed less clear. Repeating "reciting" does seem the best solution. However, the phrase should start the sentence since CJN says both Patreon and PayPal bans were due to the slogan recital. So maybe say, "As a result of reciting the slogan,^[CJN] crowdfunding site Patreon suspended her account in May 2018^[Balkissoon] and she was subsequently banned from PayPal that July.^{[Daily Beast]/[Metro]}" Skingski (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually the quote from CJN is: "Since then, she’s been banned from both Patreon and PayPal for reciting – and later defending – the “14 words,” Skingski (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Was she using Stripe? The text as it is doesn't make that clear, so it comes off as random. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I thought that referred to Freestartr using/being banned from Stripe. I haven't seen anything about Goldy herself using Stripe. Maybe it's irrelevant here? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm just being completist. Freestartr had only 2 ways to pass on payments to people - PayPal and Stripe. Both left Freestartr at the same time. Curly, feel free to provide a better way to express this. Also I think we can put the proposed change into the article. Seems we are only working on small details now. Skingski (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

If she wasn't using it, then it shouldn't be cluttering up the text in this context. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, bringing this all together; I think this encompasses all of the discussion in this section:

Two things: does the last sentence have too many commas? And, as Floydian inadvertently suggested while editing the article today, do either GQ or Newsweek repeat exactly which words Goldy spoke? If not, I think we should remove the text of the slogan, just end the sentence after Fourteen Words. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Never mind that last bit: GQ does repeat what she said, and it says she said "white children", not "our children". Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The full quote is that plus "Is that what you want me to say?" Although she later defends what she said in a video of her own, it's clearly a soundbite from a larger context. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Floydian, the video sounds like "white children" not "our". I understand she contextualizes and defends it. However, we need a reliable source that covers that. We can't do that for her.

Also, while I know we can use quotes from transcripts, I am unclear about Wiki policies regarding using quotes we faithfully transcribe from an audio-only source. Anyone know? Skingski (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure about policy, but being as this is a BLP, I think it would be wise for us not to try to transcribe audio-only sources ourselves. Particularly when a reliable source has already transcribed it, we should go with that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Ivanvector, Commas: The problem is the sentence is too long.

I just realised we say she has accounts, but not why -- which is to fund her indie journalism, commentaries, etc. (IDK what her listed reasons for funding were prior to mayoral run)

So, maybe we say:

"After losing her Patreon account, her independent journalistic activities were sponsored through an alternative crowdfunding system, Freestartr. Later this platform was itself shut out of PayPal, leaving her unable to receive payments.[Daily Beast]/[Forward]/[ThinkProgress]" Skingski (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I think we're overthinking it with this. I'm worried that neither "independent journalistic activities" nor "sponsored" are quite NPOV. I think that the "receiving contributions" wording is fine, there is enough context provided in the article. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• One other thing I'd like to see in the lede is a brief description of whom refers to her as a white supremacist/alt-right. So far as I've seen, its generally been limited to people on the far left side of the spectrum, and mainstream media that is also left-leaning. I do understand that she is controversial, but it's only fair to the neutrality of the article that we say whom describes her as such, as many do not. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Several are listed in note [a]. Every time someone has raised this point on this page, and it happens often, I've asked the editor to suggest some such sources that counter our supposed "far-left" point of view, but I never get any back. Do you know of some? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Didn't we originally word the sentence as "Critics have described her views as..."? That seemed a fairer wording.

See my section below on what she calls herself (It includes sympathetic sources). As discussed here, we can say Goldy considers herself xyz. Then say, critics describe her as zyx. - Under "Views", we can go into it more. Skingski (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

On overthinking - Ivanvector, if you think it makes sense as is without "sponsored", etc., then cool! Here's a 2nd less comma-wracked version to replace the last sentence:

"After losing her Patreon account, she began receiving contributions through an alternative crowdfunding system, Freestartr. Later this platform was itself shut out of PayPal, leaving her unable to obtain payments.[Daily Beast]/[Forward]"

Alternatively, we could use the word "receive" 2x, adding it here: "leaving her unable to receive payments" Skingski (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Or can use "taking in" contributions or payments... Skingski (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Can we move forward on this? Skingski (talk) 04:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

As it turns out (as a point of interest) the section on "views" was added by a SPA who has just recently been blocked for plastering BLPs with individuals' fringe positions on the white genocide theory and its variants (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Carpatho). We should remove this expediently, and since we've been pretty close to an agreement on this for some time with only minor back-and-forth changes, I'm going ahead with the last edit I proposed with Skingski's most recent modification. If there are remaining problems with the result I suggest we start a new thread about it, this one is already very long and the number of ongoing discussions on this page is making it all hard to follow, for me at least. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Ivanvector Your edit looks great! Yes, we can start a new thread on that point. I will also do research on it. Skingski (talk) 23:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning in the article that she sued Bell Media for refusing to air her mayoral campaign commercial, and that the suit was thrown out? It kind of seems like an election stunt, but there are a number of sources reporting on it. National Post has a few of their own reports on it, while other major papers are picking up a Canadian Press wire (e.g. The Globe and Mail). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I vote yes since it bears on her notable campaign and received major coverage. The Post article notes Rogers Media banned her too. Skingski (talk) 04:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

It's a judgement call—the article's short enough that it wouldn't force anything else out. It should definitely be as brief as possible (so as not to be WP:UNDUE) and would be low-priority if the article were ever to grow substantially. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Probably 2 sentences long at most. Skingski (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

"Goldy mocked anti-fascist counter-protesters" -- She mocked Antifa, not antifascism movements in general. And at that, Antifa is only a "self-styled anti-fascist militant group." We should change this for accuracy with an actual reference or delete. The current reference used does not mention this. Skingski (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The source cited doesn't mention either Antifa or fascism. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Her legal name is Faith Bazos. She is known as Faith Goldy (and was previously known as Faith Goldy-Bazos when she started at Sun News). In her recent legal case against Bell Media, she was listed as Faith Bazos meaning this is still her legal name. See https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2018/2018onsc6146/2018onsc6146.html?autocompleteStr=bazos&autocompletePos=6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.62.134 (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

What is your suggestion? Skingski (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY we don't use official documents for info about living people, and we don't really need to suss out her legal name in order to write an encyclopedia entry. Nblund ^talk 19:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)