Talk:Candace Owens/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Eurabia

the article states that her belief that Europe may become a muslim majority continent by 2050 is a reference to the Eurabia conspiracy theory, I would dispute this. One of the core facets of the theory is European governments are actively working with arab states to achieve this, she hasn't said this. while the beliefs are similar they are not the same and should not be conflated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.131.193.6 (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Change Party affiliation from Republican to Independent, She states it herself.

Candance is not a republican. She claims as independent in the Joe Rogan podcast last year. Please change Republican to Independent.

SOURCE: THE INTERVIEW ITSELF: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nnzpy5GRak TIMESTAMP@ 2:17:45 24.102.208.138 (talk) 02:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Article currently cites two sources in which Owens says she registered as a Republican. This one from 2019, says "she said, she was an independent and didn’t register as a Republican until last year". The podcast linked is from 2018 so she very well may have registered Republican sometime after that interview. Cannolis (talk) 08:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Delete or Find Better Sources for Climate Change Section

The two sources for the climate change section are Business Insider & Youtube. Business Insider is not a RS, but even so, the only mention of climate change states that Owen "questioned the validity of climate change in an interview with Joe Rogan"--not that she denied the scientific consensus of climate change. Additionally, cherrypicking a brief statement from a Youtube video is also not allowed. Unless we can find better sources, the section as it stands is fully comprised of OR and it's UNDUE. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 06:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I've removed it pending better sourcing. The BI was effectively referencing (without a link) what could be called a headline. If it's going to be DUE for inclusion it needs to actually discuss her POV rather than just quote a burb that offers no additional understanding of her position. Additionally, if editors were to try to follow the link for additional information they would get none. That isn't how we should be constructing a BLP. Springee (talk) 12:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

For consensus, weighing in to agree. Without adequate RS verification, this should not be included in the article. Go4thProsper (talk) 13:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Harry Styles "Bring Back Manly Men" and Noah Cyrus' Racist Insult

Just wanted to say that we should probably include Owens' comments on Harry Styles' Vogue cover on Dec. 2, 2020, the backlash from his fans, and then when Noah Cyrus weighed in, calling Owens an offensive term (https://www.nydailynews.com/snyde/ny-noah-cyrus-racist-term-apology-20201204-xg4w5r2aenbidf4w4yt6oxmrju-story.html), as it was in the headlines for a pretty long time. I think this is important because, on Harry Styles' page, it talks about the criticism from "conservative commentators". Owens was the main one that criticized him. Thanks! Billiestan123 (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

If you think this is worthy of an encyclopedia and passes WP:10YT then add it. but I don't really think that it does personally, Tends to feel more like a celebrity blog, people can read about that kind of stuff on TMZ, I think they come here seeking more crucial information. But if consensus deems otherwise, then I am not above it EliteArcher88 (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2021

"The original Blexit movement was started in 2016 by Me'La Connelly with the goal of achieving Black economic independence by encouraging Black Americans to leave the traditional financial systems that has historically disadvantaged the Black community.[41] In late 2018, Owens launched a different Blexit foundation"

Change hyperlinked "Blexit Foundation" from (https://www.blexitfoundation.net/) which is not affiliated with the Blexit Foundation, to (https://www.blexitfoundation.org) which is the official Blexit Foundation website. PremeditatedCrimes7 (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Volteer1 (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2021

Please change the photo of Ms. Owens Farmer. The one selected indicates a bias towards her political views. 2601:347:4280:9D10:3DFB:108:FC12:7D2C (talk) 06:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. What bias? ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 06:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Views on LGBTQ Issues

I haven't seen anything talking about her being for same sex marriage. Everything she says implies she doesn't support it. Jasper Heart Baron (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Despite having a cordial relationship with Dave Rubin and reading Milo Yiannopolis,she has said various things that imply she's anti gay Jasper Heart Baron (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The only reference to her being in support of same sex marriages is the atlantic. Jasper Heart Baron (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Other than that , there is no proof Jasper Heart Baron (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

She has also compared transgender topics being taught in school as satanic Jasper Heart Baron (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Need those sources, if there isn't extensive coverage of WP:RS it shouldn't be in the article. EliteArcher88 (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

There isn't any proof that I've found on her supporting same-sex marriage other than the Atlantic. Jasper Heart Baron (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Here is where she calls the trans movement satanic. It even shows a video.https://www.mediamatters.org/candace-owens/candace-owens-trans-movement-actually-satanic Jasper Heart Baron (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

If Media Matters is the only source then it probably isn't due. Springee (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2021

I request that “false claims of voter fraud” be corrected to “claims of voter fraud” because it was actually voter fraud. Chloethepiano (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2021

Incomplete college education should not be listed on someone's education. "Went to college for a little while" is not an education achievement. 172.58.187.104 (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Articles are not a list of achievements. Both the infobox and article text descriptions of her time at university make it clear that she did not graduate; they are fine as they are. User:GKFX^talk 18:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

COVID conspiracy theorist tag

‎ValarianB, why did you restore a disputed tag when it was clear there isn't consensus for it?[[1]] ONUS is on those who wish to add this tag to get consensus (and for that matter to start a discussion related to inclusion). Additionally, per NOCON related to BLP this tag would need consensus for inclusion. Given this is a contentious tag it should only be used when sources widely describe Owen as such. We don't have that. Springee (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

ValarianB's explanation in the edit summary was "... The part where she thinks Bill Gates and the WHO use "African & Indian tribal children to experiment w/ non-FDA approved drug vaccines." is a pretty-bright lien qualifier, I'm afraid. ..." That's not as bright a line as it might appear at first. The Candace Owens tweet was: "Bill Gates & @WHO have used African & Indian tribal children to experiment w/ non-FDA approved drug vaccines. Both countries raised red flags about the unethical nature of these trials and were ignored. Here is an academic review that everyone should read. https://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1205&context=annlsurvey" That 2017 article was not about COVID vaccine, and Candace Owens did not say in the tweet that it was. Without making light of ValarianB's policy violation, I think it's easy for any reader to be deceived because the Wikipedia article puts the remark immediately after remarks about COVID, and fails to follow the guideline for quoting. It could be fixed or removed so that bad categorization doesn't happen again. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Are you joking? She is not only a COVID conspiracist, she's a COVID denier. Owens' very latest tweet reads as follows, in full: "A real pandemic wouldn't require a marketing campaign" [2]. Meanwhile, Politico ("In recent weeks, everyone from conservative commentator Candace Owens, to ... Fox News personalities have had tweets deleted for running afoul of Twitter’s coronavirus misinformation policy."). Insider ("Conservative commentator Candace Owens is using stunts and controversy to boost coronavirus conspiracy theories'"). Guardian (opinion piece, but the tweet exists) ("The same day, another conservative commentator, Candace Owens, tweeted: “They are using Covid to crash western economies and implement communist policies. That’s what’s going on."). Rolling Stone ("This theory has been propagated by everyone from conspiracy theorist David Icke (who is most notable for his endorsement of the idea that the world is controlled by a cabal of “reptilian elites,” or lizard people) to far-right figure Candace Owens").— Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Kite (talk • contribs)

Downplaying the pandemic and denying COVID-19 existence are not the same thing. WP:BI is not a particularly good source for this kind of topic, the only article that uses "conspiracy theorist". Rolling Stone labels Icke the conspiracy theorist and Owens the far-right hyperbole which is not and would not be included in the lead of this article at this stage, giving question to the information in that article, but nonetheless does not use the "conspiracy theorist" label for her. The Politico article says she tripped the Twitter's "coronavirus misinformation policy", so should we label everyone who trips that policy as a COVID-19 conspiracy theorist, and would we make Twitter's policy the "gold standard". That's something we have to determine because many sources often bring that up. If your argument is that "spreading misinformation" is equal to being a "conspiracy theorist" in this case, then make it, but if they are not specifically labelling her as a "conspiracy theorist", we cannot WP:SNYTH. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

So just to be clear - are you saying that Owens has not pushed COVID (and COVID vaccine) conspiracy theories (which is easily refuted by simply reading her Twitter feed, or at least the posts that weren't removed by Twitter for pushing COVID conspiracy theories, which is ironic), or only that there need to be more reliable sources covering it? Black Kite (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Like Peter Gulutzan said, that tweet was not specifically mentioning a COVID-19 vaccine and so we cannot synthesize. If you have more tweets, let's see them and we can examine. But even so, we can say "Owens has tweeted X..." but cannot give it a label without reliable sources identifying her as such. And so I'm not convinced at this point that this categorization is warranted. The Guardian source is an interesting one. That article shows she pushes the Great Reset conspiracy, which is not exactly equated to COVID-19 conspiracies. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 16:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The WEF / Gates / Great Reset is very much linked in with COVID by the conspiracy loons. However, I'll have a think about how we can talk about this here (ecause it is very much a part of what she is currently about). Black Kite (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, no, the onus is on Swag Lord who removed it several days ago without discussion. There are numerous citations regarding Owens and Covid conspiracy theories, such as the one where Bill Gates is experimenting on African & Indian children. This is a slam-dunk by any reasonable reading of the sources. ValarianB (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

When was it first added, was it ever stable? Additionally, using such a tag for a BLP is contentious and thus requires consensus for inclusion, not the other way around. Springee (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I think people sometimes forget that categories are still subjected to all policies including WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:BLP. Is anyone here comfortable writing in Wiki's voice that "Owens is a COVID-19 Conspiracy Theorist" and placing that somewhere in the Political Views sections? If the answer is no, then we simply can't include that category in this bio. If the answer is yes, please provide sources that explicitly refer to Owens as a COVID-19 conspiracy theorist. ValarianB informed me that all the citations are located under the COVID-19 pandemic sub-section. Let's have a look:

• PolitiFact: Owens Tweeted something false, but is not labeled as a "COVID-19 Conspiracy Theorist"
• BuzzFeed News: they reprint Owens' Tweet about “vaccine-criminal Bill Gates" but they do not label her as a "COVID-19 Conspiracy Theorist."
• The Dispatch (which I don't believe is a RS): They reprint many of her Tweets and dispute them, but they don't refer to her as a "COVID-19 Conspiracy Theorist"
• Mother Jones (a biased source that would probably need attribution): This is probably the closet source we got because they state that "[Owens] tweeted in the past about her own Bill Gates’ conspiracy theories and once claimed that she had a bad reaction to the HPV vaccine." However, once again, they don't refer to her as a "COVID-19 Conspiracy Theorist." Tweeting about conspiracy theories doesn't necessarily make one a conspiracy theorist.

I believe an editor once said that someone like Joe Rogan talks about conspiracy theories quite often (and even promotes them), but he's not a conspiracy theorist himself. If you want to add in this category, you would need to find the same caliber of sources such as the ones in Piers Corbyn and Jeanette Wilson that unequivocally refer to the subjects as conspiracy theorists. Additionally, categories are a defining characteristic of a subject. It's hard to argue that something related to COVID-19 is a defining characteristic for Owens given the fact that the entire COVID sub-section is only 5 sentences. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

ValarianB has ignored my information about the badly-reasoned edit summary and discarded my information about violation of 1RR etc.. What remains is the suggestion that the bad sentence should be fixed or removed. A possible fix would be: replace with "Regarding a matter unrelated to COVID-19, she said that Bill Gates and the World Health Organization (WHO) used "African & Indian tribal children to experiment w/ non-FDA approved drug vaccines." [cite her tweet]". But I like removing. Any other opinions? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC) Update: seeing no other opinions, I removed with a reference to this talk page discussion, but Snooganssnoogans re-inserted anyway. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The context of her vaccine-fearmongering is clearly in relation to COVID vaccines even if she does not specifically mention COVID vaccines in her tweet about Bill Gates experimenting on tribal children. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

In that case it needs to be clear that her comments were not about any COVID vaccines but vaccines in general or what ever the original context was. The content in question appears to be creating a false narrative and thus should either be edited or removed. Absent a clear rephrasing I support Peter Gulutzan's removal of the text in question. Springee (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I see now that it was Snooganssnoogans who added the sentence, and reverting me after 8 minutes does not appear to be in keeping with promises made to Awilley in a discussion about a sanction notice. But I won't re-remove. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The original content was added in June 2020 and is longstanding text at this point, but nice try. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that it falsely implies she did/said something that she didn't. As such it is not acceptable in a BLP. Springee (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

With BLP you should always side with caution so the article doesn't wrongly read like a hit piece if there is a concern raised or edit in question, I vote to take out the tag. EliteArcher88 (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I asked the Fringe theory noticeboard for feedback.[3] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The non-neutral question you asked isn't really relevant to deciding if this content is DUE or if the presentation here violates IMPARTIAL etc. NPOVN would have been a better place for this question. Springee (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

https://www.aspendailynews.com/news/candace-owens-says-she-was-denied-covid-19-test-in-aspen/article_e9a80270-0c60-11ec-97ab-736d9155b433.html

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/570613-candace-owens-says-covid-19-testing-lab-denied-her-service

https://www.salon.com/2021/08/31/candace-owens-reportedly-hit-with-sudden-illness-claims-its-absolutely-not-covid/

Update Candace Owens has been named as a target of COVID-19 conspiracy theories as there was initial reports of COVID-19 rumors after she was listed as having a sudden Illness,. Later on she was allegedly denied a COVID-19 test in September 2021 over a Colorado clinics policy.2601:640:C681:C260:286C:FD6E:9DD6:8AD3 (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Gates Material in Covid Section

Noteduck, without participation in this discussion, has restored the material which curently creates a false impression that Owen's comments about Gates and vaccines was in reference to COVID vaccines even though the comments not made in reference to COVID vaccines. Based on the discussion above there is no consensus to keep this material in a position where it implies a connection to her feelings about the COVID vaccine. It looks like there may be a consensus to remove it entirely. Perhaps a compromise would be to note in a separate section she endorsed the conspiracy related to Gates. Springee (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

where is the false comment, and what was Owens actually referring to then? Have you read the BuzzFeed News source? Noteduck (talk) 13:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

The section of the article is about COVID, not Gates in Africa. A biased source made put the items together but we don't have to. Springee (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah lets keep it out of the Covid section if its not related, if we put it in , it starts to be like WP:COATRACK EliteArcher88 (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

"Relatives"

How is a father-in-law a "relative"? Doesn't that imply incest? An in-law is a relationship by marriage, not by familial ties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.160.130.28 (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

From the first dictionary I checked: rel·a·tive /ˈrelədiv/ noun 1. a person connected by blood or marriage. -- Pemilligan (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I would say inclusion boils down to WP:NOTABILITY, seems that the father-in-law has his own article page, hinting that he is probably a notable figure, therefor most people might find it worth mentioning. Eruditess (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Invade Australia

@Snooganssnoogans: The Guardian source, the primary source, and Owens herself on youtube(cannot hyperlink to youtube? Time = 4:55) state that this comment was made “in jest”. This should be characterized correctly in your addition, and in light of that, it may not be due anyway. SmolBrane (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Let's try this again. Owens' twitter account has called this a lie[4]. BLP policy is pretty explicit. Maybe revert??? SmolBrane (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused about what the lie is. She actually said "invade Australia". She also said "in jest". But what is the lie? I'm confused by her response: (4:28) "I say that in jest - because we all know the real answer". I'm unclear on what "the real answer" is - everything else in this clip is "federal overreach" and "tyranny" and "oppression". peterl (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: PLEASE USE THE TALK PAGE. I do not like replying to edit summaries on the talk page repeatedly. Owens can "quip", and the Guardian can quote it as such, but when Owens states repeatedly that this comment was a joke, and that the Guardian's headline is a lie, we cannot be so cavalier. This is a straightforward BLP policy violation. SmolBrane (talk) 04:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Candace Owens is a far-right conspiracy theorist with a track record of lies and incendiary rhetoric. The Guardian is a RS. We stick to what the RS says. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

If the source says this is inflammatory rhetoric then report it as such. If we are just including this because she made the quip then why is this DUE? Is it included because we think she is advocating this position? Is a RS saying this is an example of her rhetorical style? Springee (talk) 04:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying now Springee. I agree that this comment seems unremarkable, and mostly functions as an opportunity to comment on Australia's satisfaction with lockdowns and low infections. The last sentence definitely seems undue and has nothing to do with Owens. SmolBrane (talk) 06:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Peterl: According to your edit summary, when I removed editorial-style content, you said "Needs this information and ref to put context as to why her statement was viewed the way it was". Viewed by whom? Are you going to include this alleged commentary? Are we the ones doing the "viewing"? Wiki is not an editorial: we don't tell readers what to think. Who is commenting on her position and how is it DUE? Why is this contentious paragraph being re-inserted when consensus is clearly absent? SmolBrane (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@SmolBrane: Sorry, yes, I could have made that clearer. The consensus view in Australia appears to be that Australians are generally satisfied with the governments handling of the pandemic,[5] and Australians viewed Owen's comments with derision,[6][7][8] and while not necessarily RS, the comments on [9] generally seem to support that view too. peterl (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The pertinent context that you're scrubbing from this page is covered by the WP:RS, so your language regarding editorializing is incorrect. It's clearly pertinent context that the policies that Owens likens to mass-murdering totalitarian dictatorships has overwhelming public support and has contributed to positive public health outcomes. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Soongans, SmolBrane is correct to remove the 'needed information'. It violates SYNTH. The source for that satisfaction information says nothing about Owens. Why did you choose to tie the information together? Do you think I'm wrong to say this fails SYNTH? Springee (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

This reads better now, thanks. SmolBrane (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

LGBT

On 12/28/21 Candace tweeted: “Any adult who encourages transgenderism in children is a child predator, bar none.“

I feel this is a very important detail to add to the LGBT portion of her page, as it certainly changes the narrative of what the current entry suggests. 2603:6011:6228:52D9:38D1:CEFE:D6E6:806C (talk) 07:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

• Well, then you need to find a secondary source that agrees with you. GMG^talk 23:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Provocateur, a term to watch out for

Here is another label we could add to the list of Candace Owens' professions in the opening sentence: an agent provocateur. Obviously, I am not going to add it yet since I am wary about being seen as digging up dirt about a political figure, especially if it means without consensus. However, the five sources I have below suggest that it is a term worth considering or at least watching out for. Of the sources I listed as of this post, the first is a George Washington University publication by a department that specializes in extremism, one is a newspaper of record, another is one of the American Big Three news broadcasting stations, another a reputable fact-checking website, and the last a conservative newspaper identified as a situational source. The list may expand in the future, but at the moment, I would be most professional to discuss the changes first. FreeMediaKid$ 12:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

No, we should really avoid labels like these. They can be controversial and in this case this limited set of sources is not sufficient to say she is widely known as X. Also, provocateur is a label that can have different meanings to different readers. It would be better to describe her actions rather than apply a subjective and vague label. Springee (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I see. While I could dig up a few more sources describing her as a provocateur, it seems that that label is best saved for individuals who are widely known to espouse fringe views or advocate for extreme measures such as Alex Jones. Actually, now that I think of it, "far-right" is more descriptive of people like Jones (and entities like One America News Network) since it strongly implies that they get things riled up, but in a particular way that "provocateur" cannot. Owens, however controversial, does not seem to espouse strictly bizarre views.

I was going to suggest a different improvement based on yours, but then I realized that the lead is a comprehensive, if still concise, summary of the subject. What I get from it, however, is scant information about the extent of her notability and how she earned it. A black liberal-turned-conservative who supports Donald Trump is appropriately written as one factor, but I think another factor contributing to her notability is the tendency of her views to prove controversial, and they in turn have sometimes been characterized as "far-right" or "alt-right". It is the same kind of thing that helped Rush Limbaugh be brought to notability, minus the "far-right" part. Correct me if I am wrong, but I imagine that she would have received less coverage overall and considerably less about her views if not for the controversy. FreeMediaKid$ 04:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh that is hilarious considering yesterday she published a tweet encouraging an invasion of Canada. Just like she encouraged the same in Australia last year. Do as you wish though. I'm certainly too biased to do anything. Goddale120 (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

References

• Meleagrou-Hitchens, Alexander; Crawford, Blyth; Wutke, Valentin (December 2, 2021). Rise of the Reactionaries: Comparing the Ideologies of Salafi-Jihadism and White Supremacist Extremism (PDF). Program on Extremism (Report). George Washington University. p. 32. Retrieved December 20, 2021.
• Brockell, Gillian (April 7, 2021). "Candace Owens compared the Capitol insurrection to the Reichstag fire. Here's why that's absurd". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 20, 2021.
• Seitz-Wald, Alex (August 29, 2021). "How Larry Elder upended the California recall". NBC News. Retrieved December 20, 2021.
• Lee, Jessica (September 15, 2020). "Is BLM To Blame for the Shooting of 2 Deputies?". Snopes. Retrieved December 20, 2021.
• Rosas, Julio (May 2, 2019). "Candace Owens quits as communications director for Turning Point USA". Washington Examiner. Retrieved December 20, 2020.

Canada convoy protest

If Rolling Stone and Newsweek aren't sufficient to include the following, would The Independent, or Business Insider, or The Globe and Mail, or The Atlantic do?

In February 2022, during the Canada convoy protest, Owens called for American troops to be sent to Canada "to deal with the tyrannical reign of Justin Trudeau Castro."

References

-- Pemilligan (talk) 02:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

This is the sort of content that needs to be included carefully. No reasonable person would read what she is saying and assume she literally means we need to use the military to invade Canada. That she is making a rhetorical point about Canada's action towards non-violent protesters is something worth noting but then the question is how? Ideally we don't report the rhetorical statement, rather we note that she was critical of the actions of the Canadian authorities. That gets the factual information across without including quotes that, absent context imply something that isn't true to her message. This is especially true when, in context, the rhetoric's meaning is clear but when presented out of context it can be used to imply a message that is not true to the original. What we should not do is include the quote with no context. That is a bad partisan journalism type thing that would have no place in an encyclopedia. Springee (talk) 04:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

BTW, reviewing the sources, most are not great sources for politics. The Atlantic often is but that particular article is actually poor. It said of Owen's tweet, "take on Russia’s war against Ukraine". However, Owens made the statement on 18 Feb, a few days after Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act to deal with a non-violent protest. Russia's invasion was still a week in the future at that point (25 Feb). To imply that Owens said this while there was an active war in the Ukraine is misleading at best. Springee (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

14 April large edits

NikolaosFanaris recently added then restored the "far-right" description as well as material in the body which was sourced to Newsweek and Rolling Stone. The restored content is here [10]. The material sourced to Newsweek and Rolling Stone should be removed both because the sources are questionable and because it comes across as not summarizing a view. Sadly many BLP articles include such "outrange of the day" sort of media bites. The other major part of the edit was an attempt to put "far-right" in the opening sentence in Wiki voice. This is problematic on several fronts. "Far-right" is both subjective (when does someone move from "right" to "far-right") and can be viewed as a contentious/value-laden label thus LABEL applies. To put "far-right" in wiki-voice the sourcing needs to be especially strong and support the view that "far-right" is a near universal term. The sources here don't rise to that level. The Atlantic is effectively a letters to the editor section. The other two are behind paywalls so it's harder to verify exactly what is claimed but both appear to be cases where we have a generalized statement, "the far right media" followed by mention of specific quotes but it doesn't say "Owens is a far-right...". These descriptions may be DUE with attribution in the body but in the opening sentence they fail IMPARTIAL as well as LABEL. Springee (talk) 19:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Both articles have been removed and replaced with Huffington Post and Forbes. In regards to the far-right label, I don't see an issue with specifying her true ideological components as we should in an encyclopedia. Since I don't really want to discuss ideology in depth here, there is no doubt that she sits in the far-right position of the political spectrum. Everything in the views section of Owens already points to that direction : anti-LGBT, anti-abortion, pro-Russian, pro-Trump views can back the far-right label easily. Not sure why this is debatable. Her views are out there, why not highlight their true nature? NikolaosFanaris (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that sort of "she said X, isn't that outrageous" type additions are not encyclopedic and should be avoided. They don't illustrate ideology so much as her rhetorical style. If the issue is how should we discuss her rhetorical style then find sources that actually talk about that. This outrange of the week sort of stuff just isn't what we should have in a BLP. Absent consensus to include the content should be removed. Your opinion that her views back the far-right label isn't sufficient. Please review LABEL. Springee (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not my opinion, it's logic. These are ideological aspects of political figures, part of the political spectrum. Are you familiar with GAL/TAN? If not I highly suggest you do some reading. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

We can say what her positions are without using contentious labels. There isn't consensus (wp:CON) to make these changes. Please self revert. Springee (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The controversial nature of her positions should be summarised by one clear label, which accurately describes her ideological positioning. There is nothing procovative about ideology or the political spectrum. It's pure political analysis. Reverting now, but hopefully more users will contribute to this conversation. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

That violates impartial. Wikipedia isn't supposed to pick sides. We can say what her positions are but applying labels, especially value-laden ones, puts us into the area of picking sides vs just telling the readers. Springee (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Political Science and the GAL/TAN scale are not POV. No one is picking any sides here - it's just political analysis of rhetoric and views, hence its widespread use on Wikipedia. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: I just re-read Springee's original post. It is quite misleading to claim that the two sources I added cannot be accessed because of paywall. Both articles are peer-reviewed papers in open access - one is published in Information, Communication & Society, and the other in Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism [1] [2]. I find the points on POV quite misleading as well. I am using two academic articles to back claims about the GAL/TAN scale, which are being used by political scientists globally. What's POV is the continuous promotion of the misleading argument that the GAL/TAN scale should not be used on Wikipedia or in politics. This is exactly what far-right actors like Owens claim; ideologically speaking they are trying to convince audiences that they don't belong anywhere. What's at stake here is that we might end up misleading readers on the ideological positioning of such political actors, who are desperately trying to whitewash their ideological contradictions. I consider Owens to be the definition of far-right activism on social media. There is no doubt that her ideas on race, sexuality, human rights and globalisation are often radical. With that said, I am patiently awating for other contributors to decide on this matter. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Please make sure you check what sources I was referring to before you accuse me (or other editors) of "misleading". The sources in question were the ones you added here [11]. One of those sources was USA Today. It said I had to subscribe to read the article. The second was the article, "What they do in the shadows: examining the far-right networks on Telegram". It also showed as requiring a subscription. That doesn't mean those sources are unusable. It means I cannot verify they support your claims. This is important because editors often will use a source that suggests or implies a label applies to a person as proof that we can use the label in Wiki-voice. That is not acceptable when dealing with value-laden labels. Since you mentioned another article, "Islamophobes are not all the same! A study of far right actors on Twitter", it should be noted that it too requires a subscription to access. Perhaps you are on a university campus where your university has access to those journals without seeing the paywall. Springee (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Incidentally, I did a Google News search for the following, "Candace Owens" "far-right" and "Candace Owens" conservative. The number of hits was 2,770 vs 17,700. While this doesn't prove how she is commonly labeled, it does show that the association with her name and "conservative" occurs far more often than her name and "far-right", a ratio of over 6 to 1. Springee (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Imagine if we allowed Google trends determine how Wikipedia should shape political articles when it comes to ideology. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

When it comes to applying value-laden labels we need to decide if they are near universally applied or only in some sources. While not definitive, a search such as the one I did does provide some idea of the relative usage of of various labels. It's far better than just relying on a combination of editor opinion and searches for sources that contain the keywords we wish to see in the article. Springee (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

As I previously said, calling the GAL/TAN scale 'POV' shows that you don't understand political science. And that is ok. I guess we will need more people participating in this section to decide on the label. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 12:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Where did I call it POV? I called it subjective, which it is. Can you clearly define when someone transitions from "centrist" to "right" or "right" to "far-right"? Also, as a general rule, it's best to use article talk pages to discuss content, not what knowledge you feel other editors do/don't have. Please review wp:FOC. Springee (talk) 12:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

There is a huge gap between conservatism and the far-right. Labelling someone simply as conservative, when their positions are clearly radical in terms of human rights, reproductive rights or even foreign policy, then we are kind of misleading readers. Like I said, read more about GAL/TAN because you did call it impartial which shows that your understanding of political theory/analysis might be a bit flawed. That is absolutely fine, but repeatedly calling the most used model for the positioning of political ideology as 'POV' shows that you don't understand its purpose. Cheers. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

And now we are falling back on your subjective views of the situation. Where did I call anything, other than your views, "POV"? I referenced wp:IMPARTIAL. Springee (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Gosh [1] NikolaosFanaris (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Did you read wp:IMPARTIAL which is what I referenced? Springee (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Why did you remove content without consensus just now? NikolaosFanaris (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOCON. The new additions to a BLP have been disputed. Springee (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe both your edit summaries are misleading. This one [1] removed a quote from Owens where she refers to a sovereign nation (Ukraine) as "a thing that did not exist until 1989" - in that way she openly justified Putin's invasion through her show and of course on Twitter. Isn't that her view on the war? The second edit [2] removed a quote by Owens where she calls Disney's executives child groomers and paedophiles. It's vandalism and I recommend you take a few steps back here and rethink your approach. Please read wp:IMPARTIAL in case you are not familiar with WP. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

We should summarize her position, not present a quote without it's larger context and let the reader guess what she meant or in what context she used the quoted text. To say that quote=Putin's war is justified is a big logical leap. Even to claim that is her view on the war is a huge leap. The second edit is an example of summarizing. We are not required to use exact quotes. Using IMPARTIAL language is actually preferred. Accusing editors of vandalism is a CIVIL issue. Springee (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

"Let the reader guess what she meant", and then proceeds to delete her quotes calling them POV. Please read wp:IMPARTIAL. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• There is nothing Conservative in her recent stance. We should honor the meaning and significance of conservative views by keeping them clearly differentiated from Far-right views such as hers. SPECIFICO talk 16:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The only problem with your suggestion is that more sources describe her as a conservative than as far-right according to Springee. As such, we should still call her a conservative and not far-right. X-Editor (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Look at the most recent sources -- from the past 2 years. There's no doubt, as the article details, that she once supported conservative values and views and is now stark raving alt-right right-wing far-right in her positions. What do you see in the last 2 years and the past one year? SPECIFICO talk 18:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

X-Editor, you do realize that she can be conservative, alt-right, and far-right at the same time? She just happens to be toward the far end of the right side of the left-right political spectrum, so that's why she is labeled as far-right.

Calling her conservative is a duh, vague, uninformative label. We strive for accuracy when possible, and plenty of RS do that for us. Here's a parallelism. Imagine labeling her a human. Duh! Calling her a female is much more informative. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Allow me to add that recent academic publications, examining the American ultraconservative sphere on Twitter and other platforms, seem to perceive Owens as a leading far-right voice. I added two of those, but they were removed by Springee as "cite overkill"(!) [1] - IMO those were the most reliable sources so far in the whole article, backing both Owens' far-right ideology and her role as an influencer. For more: Information, Communication & Society and Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The problem is those sources are behind a pay wall so we can't verify if they say what you claim. Additionally most sources call her conservative. Finally there is the issue of LABEL. Springee (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Others have explained to you that the paywall is not a reason to remove citations (especially academic ones) - you are an experienced user, I guess by now you already know that right? Have you even tried googling those two articles? [1] [[2]] Please read Wikipedia:POV. Most of your edits attempt to hide notable information. The removal of reliable academic papers is unacceptable. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

(ec)@Springee:Do you agree we should use the most recent high quality sources, the recency being critical due to Owens' recent change in her views on many issues? Let's settle that procedural or methodological question before we look at individual sources and proposed changes to article text. SPECIFICO talk 14:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The problem with the pay wall sources is we don't know if they actually support what NF claims. I'm certainly not inclined to assume they do. It's not uncommon for an editor who is pushing a LABEL to take a statement from a RS that says, for example, "Owens is accused of expressing far right claims" and turn it into "Owens is far right" in wiki voice. Their recent restoration of disputed edits without clear consensus further illustrates why the 3RRN discussion is needed. Springee (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I provided PDF files for both publications - have you had a look or will you just keep pushing your unnecessary POV? NikolaosFanaris (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@NikolaosFanaris: @Springee: I have accessed the two sources. The first one is a fictitious reference; it mentions Candace Owens once, and does not support what NikolaosFanaris claims it supports: In fact, channels devoted to Trump comprise the third-biggest community in the network. They include channels that post Trump’s statements or tweets (it is unclear if any of these are officially affiliated with him or the White House) and personal channels of his active supporters such as Candace Owens.[12]. The second one does somewhat support the label; Owens is mentioned in passing amongst a list of "far right influencers": Since this research was first conducted (2017), platforms have increasingly adopted such an approach, as reflected in the decision by Twitter to ban far right influencers, such as Tommy Robinson in 2018, and Candace Owens and Katie Hopkins in 2020.[13] Endwise (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Endwise: She is perceived by the authors as a far-right influencer within far-right networks on Telegram whilst her overall presence on the platform is often discussed by far-right extremists. How is it a fictitious reference when her account appears in the research as an actual far-right influencer? The second reference CLEARLY highlights her as a far-right influencer. Therefore, somewhat is another understatement. Please, retract your statement immediately. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

It actually specifically separates her from far-right accounts. It has many divisions of communities, and the "Donald Trump-related" community is specifically separated from the far-right communities. Much like it does for the e.g. "Hong Kong pro-democracy movement" community. In fact it describes this as one of the only mainstream communities in the network it was looking at. It is generally beneficial to read the sources you cite before citing them. Endwise (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Here you go, another publication labelling CO as an alt-right (technically the same as far-right) figure [14]. The list goes on and on - recent academic journals avoid referring to her as a conservative voice because of her extremist views. That should be clear by now. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Should we use most recent RS given the change in her views?

I asked this about 5 posts up in the preceding thread and I am disappointed to see nobody respond. Again, this is without reference to any particular source or content. I am only concerned with how we can avoid blending sources that reflect two different stages in the evolution of her thought and messaging. SPECIFICO talk 15:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• Yes* NikolaosFanaris (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• No Even a cursory look at Google News shows that most sources still describe her as a conservative or republican. X-Editor (talk) 03:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• No if the intent of the question is to ask if we should look at a few recent mentions to apply a value-laden label to the opening sentence of a BLP in Wiki-voice.
  As a more general question, only to some extent. First, let's ignore which labels current vs older sources are using and just consider if we should give more weight to newer sources. In general I would say yes. However, more weight is not the same as 100%. Let's suppose we have 10 years of history and in the last two the terms seem to have changed. Is that a long term change or just RECENT. Also, are those recent sources really strong? One of the issues with NF's arguments above is the view that academic sources are automatically stronger than others. That really depends. If we are talking about a journal review paper describing the state of some technology art vs say a news story on the same subject, yes, teh journal paper is likely better. However, what if we were talking about say a profile of Owens in a mainstream media source vs an academic paper published in a journal with limited impact factor that mentioned Owens only as part of a group for some claim in the paper. No, in that case the academic source isn't going to be as strong. In part because the hypothetical academic source provides no justification for the label/classification. We don't have the details to really dive into things. This is why the context of how the material was presented does matter.
  As a non-political example of this, take the Ford Pinto fires. The common knowledge of the Pinto as a car that caught fire with even a minor rear impact and where Ford decided to pay off the victims rather than fix the problem really took hold in popular understanding. That understanding was so strong that business school papers would often mention it as fact. While it may have been a useful illustrative example, it was largely not true. If those papers had actually researched the subject vs just repeat what is "known" they probably would not have made those claims. Still, since those claims were in "academic" papers for a long time editors tried to use them as citations in the Ford Pinto article. They are exactly the sort of "academic" citations we shouldn't use because later researched aimed specifically at the topic found them to be almost entirely incorrect. The point to that side story is we need to be very careful about assuming that facts that are mentioned/assumed in a single sentence sort of reference should be treated as "academic proof". Additionally, when it comes to contentious labels we need more substantial references, not single sentence mentions, even if they are in academic papers. Springee (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• Nuance is needed. The "Ideology" section in the body is quite short, and expanding it seems reasonable. That could involve more focus on chronology, especially if her views have verifiably continued to evolve in the last two years. The lead summarizes the body, so this expansion might inform whether an attributed (not in Wikivoice, obviously) description of alt-right or far-right would be warranted somewhere in the lead as well. Its proposed insertion in Wikivoice in the first sentence is a non-starter. VQuakr (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  We describe many far and alt- right individuals as such in Wikivoice in their leads on varios pages. SPECIFICO talk 17:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Mmmkay. What does the policy say? Stating that violations of the policy exist isn't a good counter argument. VQuakr (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

On the contrary. Please read that policy section. It says not to misstate in either over- or under- (to the extent the one dimensional model applies) state the weight of well-sourced content. SPECIFICO talk 17:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

It does say that; then what does it go on to say? Please read that policy section.

Moving on from the silly sniping: I suspect that once the body is expanded there will be adequate coverage in the body to warrant mention in the lead, in the format of "Writing in source X, notable commentator Y characterized Owens's views as Z" that avoids our applying contentious labels in Wikivoice. VQuakr (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to inform you that "contentious" does not hinge on whether 2 or 3 editors briefly complain about it on the talk page. SPECIFICO talk 19:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to inform you that you're not the arbiter of whether others' opinions are valid. BLP requires us to edit with greatest care. This isn't a particularly close call, and the concepts I've briefly outlined (lead follows body; first sentence reserved for definition of subject; attribute labels instead of presenting as fact in Wikivoice) are SOP. VQuakr (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Moon Landing

Why is her view on the moon landing under the "controversies" section? Perhaps it would be better suited in the views/beliefs section? I propose we move it or delete it altogether. Dswitz10734 (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I suspect it's there because it's one of her controversial views. We should keep it, no matter where it's located. Her scientific illiteracy is rather shocking. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Is this really her view or is she just trolling on Twitter? The cited source is an Op-Ed in the Washington Examiner. Probably best to remove this. Springee (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems accurate (there are two tweets), especially since it is documented by a source that's ideologically friendly to her. Keep it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Washington Examiner is not a great source. I agree that it should be removed unless better sourcing is available. This is what the BLP policy directs us to do. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Then Independent is reliable - [15]. Houston Press - dunno about that [16]. But we have Owens' actual Tweets, so I don't see that it's an issue. Black Kite (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Well yeah anyone can go see the actual tweets for themselves, but wouldn’t we need a RS documenting them before we wrote about it here? Mr Ernie (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Depends how you interpret WP:ABOUTSELF. But the Independent is reliable, even if the Houston local paper isn't. Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

We need secondary sources to establish WP:WEIGHT, but it sounds like those exist. VQuakr (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

We have several secondary sources mentioning the tweet (actually two tweets), so we're good. If the Examiner were making a controversial, fringe promotional, statement (as they often do), I'd be wary of using them, but they aren't at all. On the contrary, they are scolding their ideological ally and promoting the mainstream, factual, view of the moon landing. This makes them an excellent source in this case, and we are supposed to judge usage on a case-by-case basis. The Examiner passes with flying colors this time if we actually read it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

This still looks like she was trolling. Did any of these sources actually reach out and ask her about this? I'm not impressed with any of the sources we have. This all comes off as very gossipy and substance free. Springee (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

No RS indicate she was trolling. Read both tweets. Multiple sources took her seriously, so we must do the same. The only thing that could change the narrative would be her later denial and statement that she was actually trolling, but that didn't happen and wouldn't make sense as she really is that scientifically ignorant. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

2 of the 3 sources are opinion articles. The third seems to be more about Ted Cruze but I haven't signed up to read the thing. None of these are very good sources and no, we don't have to assume her comments were meant to be serious if common sense suggests they might not be. Did any of these sources reach out to her for comment or verify her intent? Springee (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Look at who tweeted that nonsense! Common sense tells us she was serious in her moon landing denialism. Seriously. It was Candace speaking, so what else could one expect? This is par for the course for her. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

It's a BLP. That means we err on the side of not including claims gossipy claims that may not be true. None of those sources bothered to do something basic like reaching out for comment to verify this was something she actually believed vs something she was just having fun with. If the sources can't be bothered to do even basic journalistic due diligence we shouldn't treat it as DUE content regardless of how we feel about the subject. Springee (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

That's OR thinking and none of our business. We document what RS say, and even a right-wing source took her VERY seriously. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

No, OR would be adding "Owens made the tweet in jest" to the article. Saying as much here to explain why this content is undue is not. Per ONUS we are not required to include this just because it passes a bare level of verifiability. Springee (talk) 01:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Valjean. We are not mind readers, we say what sources say. I don't think we should be asking for consensus on something that there isn't a source or citation for, either...DN (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

But that fails to establish WEIGHT. If something goes into the article it must be WP:V. Just because we can verify she made those tweets doesn't mean we have to include them. This is especially true since the sourcing in this case is two op-eds and a commentary article. Two of the three mention the tweet as background context. None reached out to Owens for comment. Again, BLP so err on the side of caution. If there is doubt, leave it out. Springee (talk) 02:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

This is something she said herself on twitter, right? How much weight does that usually have in an article like this? Also, for example, look at the lede. In recent years, Owens has promoted several conspiracy theories, mostly through her social media profiles, and expressed anti-lockdown views and anti-vaccination opinions during the COVID-19 pandemic. The amount of controversies she has spoken on take up about a third of the article. I'm not against adding some less controversial stuff as soon as she gives us something, but the text in place does not violate BLP IMO. It's very cut and dry...

In February 2022, Owens tweeted that "Now for some light-hearted fun. What's the one 'conspiracy theory' that no matter what anyone says you believe is true. Mine is that the moon landing in 1969 was completely faked. Just nothing about it makes sense. Especially NASA 'accidentally erasing' the original footage."

That's about par for the course in the section it's located in...DN (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

No one doubts she said it. What I question is if she was trolling/joking or really meant it. Her "light-hearted fun" comment does suggest she could be putting people on. How hard would it have been to reach out to her to ask, "were you kidding". Given the quality of the sources that covered this tweet and the context (only one was actually about the tweet and that was an OpEd in a source that people say is questionable) how can we say that establishes sufficient WEIGHT to include this claim. How does it hurt us to leave it out? Answer, it doesn't so leave it out. I suspect a lot of why there are so many "controversies" is because writers find them to be easy, click generating stories. Why do we as editors feel it is important to include so many seems to be a better question. Is this supposed to be an encyclopedia or a gossip/politics column? Springee (talk) 03:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Presumably nobody reached out to confirm it because she's a notable conspiracy theorist? And she called it her 'conspiracy theory' that no matter what anyone says you believe is true? There's really no room for the doubt you're trying to cast. ––FormalDude talk 04:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Well that and the sources are Op-Ed/political commentary bits from smaller news outlets. That speaks against weight for inclusion. Yes, there is room for doubt and certainly room to say this doesn't have weight for inclusion. Springee (talk) 04:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

There really is no room for doubt, even though she frames it in a light-hearted way. She doesn't just say she believes the conspiracy theory. No, she says that she believes this conspiracy theory is true "no matter what anyone says". In her next tweet she doubles down and adds more to confirm she's serious (see below):

"In February 2022, Owens tweeted that "Now for some light-hearted fun. What's the one 'conspiracy theory' that no matter what anyone says you believe is true. Mine is that the moon landing in 1969 was completely faked. Just nothing about it makes sense. Especially NASA 'accidentally erasing' the original footage." "The biggest thing for me is the fuel tank size, plus the live broadcast with audio from the moon. In 1969. I just cannot."

The Washington Examiner is only unusable when it does what it typically does, which is to push right-wing nonsense. (WP:RS/P does not forbid all use.) In this case, we have them scolding their own ally, and they explain why what she's saying is so stupid, so we should not only use them as a source, we should quote them for context because merely providing her tweet, without any RS context, isn't very informative:

"In February 2022, Owens tweeted: "Now for some light-hearted fun. What's the one 'conspiracy theory' that no matter what anyone says you believe is true. Mine is that the moon landing in 1969 was completely faked. Just nothing about it makes sense. Especially NASA 'accidentally erasing' the original footage." Her next tweet confirmed her belief in the conspiracy theory: "The biggest thing for me is the fuel tank size, plus the live broadcast with audio from the moon. In 1969. I just cannot." Mark Whittington, of the conservative Washington Examiner, criticized her for pushing the moon landing hoax conspiracy theory: "Sorry, Candace Owens, but men really did walk on the moon." After calling her out, he proceeded to explain the facts about the 1969 moon landing.

How about that better developed and attributed version? There is no room for doubt, and it is an OR and NPOV violation to go against what RS and Owens actually say. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

No one is talking about OR. We are talking about DUE. Springee (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I was. IMO, casting doubt without citations, or sources with her "saying it was a joke" is akin to OR. IMO. DN (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Per the opening of OR, "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." Springee (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

My mentions of OR were in the same sense as done by DN. It's true that OR only applies to article content and not to talk pages, but the only kind of OR allowed on talk pages is OR that seeks to harmonize with and further the goals of PAG, not undermine them and contradict them. Such OR is disruptive and can do all kinds of bad things, such as furthering fringe POV, whitewashing, forbidden advocacy, NPOV violations, SYNTH violations, etc. When you substitute your own mental gymnastics (your own OR) for what RS say, especially when it goes directly against what RS say, then you're not acting as a good wikipedian. Don't do such things. The principle behind SYNTH violations is being violated because you are coming to a contrary conclusion than RS, and worse yet, you want to use your OR thinking to guide your creation of article content. This pattern of whitewashing right-wing/conservative content/people/sources of anything critical or negative needs to stop. That's how Trump creates his "alternative facts". It's a really annoying type of wikilawyering. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I think you are missing the big picture. I'm saying this isn't DUE. Let's start with the assumption that Owens is not trolling/etc. Do we have any good sources? No. We have two OpEds and a commentary article from a political source that mentions this tweet in context of something Ted Cruze said. The fact that her sincerity can be questioned based on the contents of the tweet and that none of the sources bothered to reach out for further comment makes it that much easier to say this content is noise. This isn't like climate change or COVID where we have multiple examples of comments that can be used to illustrate her views. We have just two tweets with very limited coverage. It isn't DUE for inclusion. That she is controversial is no reason to turn her BLP into a Daily Kos article. Springee (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion First it's not clear she was being serious vs just having fun. Note her opening statement about "Now for some light-hearted fun." An OpEd and a commentary article mentioned this in context of a comment by Ted Cruze. Our other source is an OpEd article explaining the moon landing was real. Are we also supposed to assume tucker Carlson really wants to go by them/their because his Twitter profile says so? This is the sort of low quality stuff we shouldn't put into BLP articles. It certainly isn't good encyclopedic content that would survive the 10YEAR test. Springee (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support inclusion Her opinions on this subject were reported in newspapers, which does suggest notability, and it is one part of her broader support for conspiracy theories in general. My only concern is, does this need to be in its own heading? Why not just create a "conspiracy theories" heading, and then include one sentence underneath that heading mentioning this specific conspiracy theory? Funtoedit1212 (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• CLARIFICATION- This is not strictly an include VS exclude post by OP. Here is the original QUESTION/request..."Why is her view on the moon landing under the "controversies" section? Perhaps it would be better suited in the views/beliefs section? I propose we move it or delete it altogether."...To answer this question, since Owens seems to be making almost her entire living on controversy these days, it doesn't seemingly matter much if it is put under "views/beliefs" or "controversies". She is a paid political actor and not a politician nor a public servant or representative. I don't think OP takes this into consideration here, therefore the proposition seems moot. See False dilemma...Just because it is not under "views/beliefs" does not negate the WEIGHT or the cited sources (including her own twitter) that back this up. There is no cause or evidence presented by OP or anyone here, IMO, to either put it under views/beliefs or remove it entirely, as those are not even the only 2 options... DN (talk) 03:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

References

The people writing this wiki apparently hate Candace 2600:1011:A116:F8F:A1B5:EEAD:83FB:BEB3 (talk) 09:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

My main point isn't questioning her point, it's questioning any this should be listed as a "controversy" instead of a subheading in the beliefs/ views section. she's been in bigger controversies than simply a tweet talking "light-hearted fun". Dswitz10734 (talk) 02:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

This is beyond NPOV violation; it's bigoted BS

"... promoted conspiracy theories" ? Really? She's joked about the "faked moon landing" conspiracy theory, in a post starting "let's have some fun". Clue to the terminally humorless: that's an indication that what follows is to be taken as a joke (look up the word 'joke' in a dictionary if it's unfamiliar to you).

She's opposed vaccine mandates and is sceptical about the efficacy and safety of vaccines. That's an opinion. Personally, I think it's an incorrect opinion, but it isn't even close to being a "conspiracy theory". Some people believe that vaccines contain microchips that let the government control you, or something, and that's definitely a conspiracy theory, but she's never said anything like that.

A majority of Wikipedia editors seem to believe that anyone who holds opinions different from the liberal consensus is ipso facto irrational or worse, to be "canceled" by being called "far right" or a "conspiracy theorist". The belief that there is one, and only one, set of opinions that are Correct is characteristic of totalitarian societies. You cannot have an open society unless you are willing to respect people whose opinions are different from yours. If Wikipedia's pages on living political activists are to be anything more than propaganda for one point of view, editors have to understand this. Barbacana (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Documentary 'The Greatest Lie Ever Sold' by Candace Owens & 'The Daily Wire'

Just am watching this documentary and came to the page here. I would like to see if it would be of any pertinence to make note of the fact that this is the first documentary produced by Candace Owens. The documentary explores how donation money to the BLM movement ended up in the pockets of people who were not victims of racial discrimination or those that are needy and impoverished, rather they were the administrators and founders of the BLM organization, money enriching those who claimed to be raising it for altruistic purposes, (similar to what happened to the Red Cross and many other charitable organizations several years ago). 172.250.237.36 (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• We could mention that it exists, although even that is dubious since it does not appear to have been covered widely. We could not of course say that any of the things it claims to be true are, in fact, true, unless those claims were made in reliable sources (which the "documentary" clearly isn't). Black Kite (talk)

Russian propaganda and false claims regarding NATO

The currently stated piece has only two citations, both opinion pieces from newspapers. Currently stated is that she has promoted Russian propaganda (itself a questionable statement as what constitutes propaganda, what constitutes personal view, and what constitutes vocal support for a cause based on personal belief is not determined).

it further states "including false claims that NATO promised Russia not to accept new members" This is controversial in the extreme. Such statements were repeatedly made by various heads of state of NATO countries, but never by NATO itself - as shown in the cited NSA documents and explained in detail -citing necessary sections- by the National Security Archive of George Washington University (as opposed to an opinion piece in a newspaper). Politifact rates it as "mostly false" and cites that the primary reason given by prominent academics is that although Russia was given these assurances, they were never included in agreements, and although it was done on record and publicly, it was never from NATO, but from ministers and heads of state of NATO countries.

This is not impartial. Ms. Owens must be held accountable for her words and They must be public knowledge, but we do so in a factual and impartial manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.184.183.37 (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

When the Berlin Wall fell, it was well documented that the West could have East Germany; but that NATO would stay out of the Eastern Block countries. I think that this is what is being referred to. NATO did not exactly "promise" Russia it would not accept new members. In fact, there was no 'Russia' at the time, there was only The Soviet Union.

172.250.237.36 (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Clarification to the above; you could be referring to the 'Minsk Agreement', from the early 90s, which is purported to have layed out a limitation to how far East NATO could spread, and which former Eastern Block countries would be acceptable to release to the West for membership (The Ukraine and Crimea were not included with Western Europe). Again, this was during the time of the Soviet Union, the Communist dictatorship; which no longer exists. We still can take note that many of the treaties between the USSR and the USA still carried over to the current Russian Commonwealth, but still, again, many of the old treaties are getting ignored as time progresses.

172.250.237.36 (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Candace Owens

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Candace Owens's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Hill":

• From Southern strategy: Hill, Ricky (March 2009). "The Race Problematic, the Narrative of Martin Luther King Jr., and the Election of Barack Obama" (PDF). Souls: A Critical Journal of Black Politics, Culture, and Society. 11 (1): 133–47.
• From Kanye West: Polus, Sarah (3 October 2022). "Ye, Candace Owens wear 'White Lives Matter' shirts at Paris Fashion week". The Hill. Retrieved 2022-10-03.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

Between supporting Kanye West and now this nonsense on the ADL is it possible to write up on her passive/active anti-Semitism? Saxophonemn (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

She says racist incident was actually caused by a gay friend of hers.

Candace Owens did an interview with joe rogan in which she says that the racist incident that happened to her in highschool was actually a gay friend being envious of her giving all her time to her highschool boyfriend. Can this be added to this article? Here is the video: Joe Rogan - The Incident That Made Candace Owens a Conservative - YouTube 50.40.223.243 (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Do reliable sources cover this?--Malerooster (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Neutral lead rewrite again

Duplicate section, please discuss above.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Can somebody who is neutral towards the subject please take a stab at writing a lead section? I will try again over the next few weeks. Thank you. Malerooster (talk) 03:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC) hatting this, already being discussed above. –dlthewave ☎ 04:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

New lead section rewrite?

Does anybody want to take a stab at a rewrite that is NPOV and balanced? Post it here and discuss. Malerooster (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I removed 'activist' because she is not an activist. She is a host for a right wing program that promotes disinformation. 162.245.142.251 (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Candace Amber Owens Farmer (née Owens; born April 29, 1989) is an American conservative author, talk show host, political commentator, and activist.[1][2][3][4] Initially critical of United States President Donald Trump and the Republican Party, Owens has been recognized in part for her pro-Trump activism as a black woman,[5] in addition to her criticism of Black Lives Matter and the Democratic Party.[6][7][8] On several occasions she has claimed that the effects of white supremacy and nationalism are exaggerated, especially when compared to other issues facing Black Americans.[9][10] She worked for the conservative advocacy group Turning Point USA between 2017 and 2019 as its communications director.[11] In 2021, she joined The Daily Wire, where she hosts Candace, a political talk show.[12] Owens has generated controversy through her social media profiles and television & media appearances by expressing anti-lockdown views[15], anti-vaccination opinions during the COVID-19 pandemic, among other views.[16]

I suck at this but you get the gist. --Malerooster (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

What's wrong with the version we've had since last March? With the bold sentence, you've made the mistake of being "neutral" in the common-use sense instead of the Wikipedia/NPOV sense. When someone is promoting conspiracy theories or spreading misinformation, we label it as such rather than using watered-down words like "views". This comes across as whitewashing. –dlthewave ☎ 03:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree. This really looks like whitewashing. RS don't coddle her, so we are not allowed to either. Doing so would violate NPOV by neutering the clearly negative descriptions from RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

We need to be careful about claims of whitewashing. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a place where we can collect every negative claim made about a person and turn things into a article that tries to persuade the reader the BLP is a bad person. It's best when we use the lead for the hard facts and leave the subjective assessments in the body where they can be provided with more context. I personally far more BLP intros should be like the proposal vs reading like they were written by HuffPo writers with an ax to grind. Again, IMPARTIAL means we present it as if we were impartial to the subject of the article. I see there is a similar debate going on at The Daily Caller about this sort of thing. I'm not involved (I don't think I've ever edited the article or talk page) but it seems typical of issues related to Wikipedia articles on right media figures/sources. Springee (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not my fault that our leads are supposed to briefly mention content from the body. Editors, per NPOV, are supposed to edit neutrally and just look at the body, then let its content dictate the lead. Not mentioning these well-documented issues would be editorial POV interference, and that's not neutral efiting.

The reason that more people on the right are affected is pretty simple. Their sources are unreliable, they believe the conspiracy theories pushed by Trump and all their right-wing media heroes, and RS universally out their nonsense. It really can't have any other outcome until the day you can successfully change policy to treat unreliable sources as if they are reliable. It appears that may be your desire. Is it? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Whoever this Springee is, they're clearly not open to viewpoints other than their own and it's antithetical to the idea of this website. As I posted above, both Springee and Malerooster are intentionally watering down the main concepts Candace Owens is synonymous with and they bring shame on themselves and this website by doing so. Jtmp96 (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)