Talk:Candace Owens/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Lead sentence

Regarding this edit: is it true that there is contention over the sincerity of the gunman? From what I can tell, two of the four cited sources directly say that this should not be taken seriously, and the other two don't comment one way or another. The Washington Post says it "was almost certainly" a joke. The Guardian quotes other experts offering roughly the same view. The BBC, The New Republic, Slate, National Post all suggest something similar. I think this statement probably doesn't belong in the lead, but - as long as it's there - I think we should be a little less credulous and say that the statement was "widely viewed as a joke" or was "generally viewed as insincere". Nblund ^talk 22:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Nblund, I think we are suggesting something that all the reliable sources -- who comment -- seem to deny. MPS1992 (talk) 22:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • There is certainly contention, not only about the naming of Owens being insincere, but of the entire manifesto being a joke that shouldn't be taken seriously. FYI, the gunman also wrote Spyro the dragon 3 influenced his political views, and he said he carried out the attack "to incite violence, retaliation and further divide." (of course, that is WP:OR). The current sources in the lead are not good: I've never heard of Mamamia or TRT World. The sources below the lead under the controversies section are more reliable. I'm sure we can find more if necessary. 84percent (talk) 03:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I've put in 'widely viewed as insincere' - the initial wording I put it was pretty bad, but I don't think we can definitively say that it was a 'joke'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. 84percent (talk) 04:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Southern strategy claims are "false" not merely "controversial"

Just as we don't call Holocaust denial "controversial". The sources call Owens' statements about the Southern strategy false, not controversial. Politifact: Candace Owens' false statement that the Southern strategy is a myth --Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

"Myth" has different meanings (e.g. it's somewhat synonymous with "folk tale"), and "didn't happen" could be hyperbole, or meaning that it didn't happen in XYZ way, or aspect XYZ of the event didn't happen; i.e. the words are not intended to be taken literally. If Owens was making the claim that the Southern strategy literally did not exist, that would be a false statement; however, I don't believe that was the intent behind her words. Anyway, I think "controversial" is better than "false". 84percent (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

We go with what sources say, which is that it's false. You are not the Candace Owens whisperer. You do not have unique insight into what she means when she says things. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Please check WP:APR; have a great day! 84percent (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

We write what the sources say. Owens stated that the Southern Switch and the Southern Strategy were myths that "never happened". The sources say this is "false" not "controversial". Just as I've said to you before, when in doubt we must report exactly what the sources say. It is not for us to provide analysis. However, I think your stated interpretation doesn't pass the straight-face test. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I have no issue with stating what the source says, however if we want to use the concrete "false", I suggest attributing that view to Politifact. What's the straight-face test? 84percent (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

We don't need in line attributions for facts that are widely accepted by secondary sources. This is not a "view" this is a "fact". We don't say, "In Politifact's view, it is false to say the Holocaust never happened." Do you want at least three citations? --Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

As it's incredibly important to remain neutral and truthful, I recommend we attribute "false" to Politifact. We are not Candace Owens whisperers. 84percent (talk) 05:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Accepted facts don't need attribution. If I were the "Candace Owens whisperer" it would mean that I could read her mind. Her thoughts and intentions are irrelevant here. We are not calling her statements lies; we are calling them false. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I see that I am repeating myself, but you didn't respond to my question. Would three sources stating that her statements were false be enough for you to accept no in line attributions are necessary? Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I want to add that this is not contentious material about Candace Owens. She is completely irrelevant here. The STATEMENTS were false. The fact that she said them is what is potentially contentious. So, we have given context and evidence that she made the statements. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

No, I don't need three citations. I understand, and after just now watching the congressional hearing and listening to those comments for the first time, I withdraw my objection. False is a good descriptor. I was wrong; her meaning is clear. 84percent (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

What you've stated does not validate my assertion about what the sources say. As I've repeatedly stated, what she meant is irrelevant to this discussion. But thank you for withdrawing your opposition. I look forward to you doing it again some time. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2019

Under the “Comments About Hitler” section I would like to suggest adding Candace Owens statement which is quoted in the same source [77] currently being used in the last sentence in that section currently ending with “Lieu stated that he did not know Owens and was just going to let her own words characterize her, before playing the audio clip.[77]”

Specifically, I suggest adding the following sentence at the end of that paragraph: Owens responded to Lieu by stating. "I think it's pretty apparent that Mr. Lieu believes that black people are stupid and will not pursue the full clip,” and later added that Lieu’s tactic was "unbelievably dishonest."

The source is the same source as the preceding sentence - specifically located at

Thank you for the consideration. 76.170.74.3 (talk) 06:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done wumbolo ^^^ 09:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Christchurch mosque shootings- quote

I propose replacing the quote from The Atlantic with a reference to the primary source which The Atlantic and others reference:

Journalist Robert Evans noted that “It is possible, even likely, that the author was a fan of Owens’s videos; she certainly espouses anti-immigrant rhetoric. But, in context, [it] seems likely that his references to Owens were calculated to spark division, and perhaps even violence, between the left and the right.”[1][2][3]

The currently cited quote from The Atlantic (which doesn't include the highlighted text):

"Though the shooter could be a genuine fan of Owens, who has been known to espouse right-leaning views on immigration and gun control, this reference might be meant to incite Owens’s critics to blame her."[4]

I support keeping the text "the gunman's rhetoric may have been designed to troll". Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC) Or, Using the information from this new quote, we might change the Christchurch section to read:

Owens made international headlines in March 2019 when she was named in the manifesto of the gunman who committed the Christchurch mosque shootings as the person who "influenced [him] above all". Journalist Robert Evans noted that the shooter could be a genuine fan of Owens for her right-leaning views on immigration and gun control, but he and many others have opined that "the shooter may have been simply name-dropping a polarizing cultural figure in order to troll the media." Hours after the shooting, Owens posted a tweet stating that she never created any content espousing her views on the 2nd Amendment or Islam. Her tweets were criticized for including "LOL" and smiling emojis, and it was reported that she had in fact posted tweets about the 2nd Amendment and muslim immigration. She later made formal statements rejecting any connection to the shooter.

Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

This new quote answers the question appearing in most news stories mentioning Owens' connection to the shooting. "How can we know when the shooter was being sincere and when he was kidding? The writer Robert Evans makes a convincing distinction".[5] This quote repeats the opinion that the shooter was unlikely to have been inspired by her, and provides context for why he may have been a fan of hers. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• Is there any reason for this proposal? I oppose swapping one primary-sourced sentence with two primary-sourced sentences. wumbolo ^^^ 10:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Robert Evans later clarified:

• "He brought up Candace Owens, who is a far-right YouTube personality and credited her for his radicalization, which is - cannot be true"
• "The stuff that he mentions only once, like Candace Owens - that is chaff. The stuff that he mentions repeatedly that is a deeper throughline, that's something you can assume he really, truly believes."

I support nuking the whole section on the massacre. Are we going to add references to the Christchurch massacre on Spyro The Dragon too? 84percent (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Wumbolo, The primary source quote which I have discussed was directly quoted by several secondary sources, and paraphrased by the Atlantic and perhaps others. If the quotes you propose adding were included in secondary sources then we might include them, but the word "chaff" isn't known in American English. And your proposed quotes do not explain why he may have been a fan of hers. Pretty much no one thinks he was inspired by her, the point of this section is to discuss that she was named by the shooter and to discuss the media's response and analysis and Owen's own response. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

84percent, Candace Owens herself gave a formal statement to the media about the shooting and about her perception of the media's reaction. If Spyro The Dragon made headlines after the shooting and the companies representing the game made public statements about the shooting then it may be appropriate to note that in the Spyro The Dragon article. You seem to be choosing Spyro The Dagon among all the things mentioned in the manifesto because of its absurdity. The absurdity of the statements in the manifesto is irrelevant to whether they are noted in the WP articles. It is curious that you propose nuking the whole section on the massacre only now after you have been proven wrong. You previously argued that the highlighted clause in the quote: "Though the shooter could be a genuine fan of Owens, who has been known to espouse right-leaning views on immigration and gun control, this reference might be meant to incite Owens’s critics to blame her." is merely an introduction to Owens and "similar to how most people would sum Owen up", and "This part of the quote is merely a short description of Owens, and is therefore unimportant." It sounds like what you object to in actuality is the inclusion of an opinion for why the shooter may like her. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

>You seem to be choosing Spyro The Dagon among all the things mentioned in the manifesto because of its absurdity

The manifesto as a whole is absurd. Not only Spyro The Dragon, Owens, and other themes.

>If Spyro The Dragon made headlines after the shooting and the companies representing the game made public statements about the shooting then it may be appropriate to note that in the Spyro The Dragon article.

Nah, I disagree. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NEVENT, WP:EVENTCRIT.

>It is curious that you propose nuking the whole section on the massacre only now after you have been proven wrong.

Proven wrong about what?

>You previously argued that the highlighted clause in the quote: "Though the shooter could be a genuine fan of Owens, who has been known to espouse right-leaning views on immigration and gun control, this reference might be meant to incite Owens’s critics to blame her." is merely an introduction to Owens and "similar to how most people would sum Owen up", and "This part of the quote is merely a short description of Owens, and is therefore unimportant."

Correct. This is still my view and it happens to be truth. You failed to sway my opinion and others seem to agree.

>It sounds like what you object to in actuality is the inclusion of an opinion for why the shooter may like her.

Nah. 84percent (talk) 04:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

84percent, do you agree that reliable sources report that the shooter could be a genuine fan of Candace Owens for her views on immigration? Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources report a lot of things. Doesn't make it automatically WP:DUE. Notice how Quebec City mosque shooting isn't mentioned at Ben Shapiro, and 2017 Congressional baseball shooting isn't mentioned at Bernie Sanders. (click for context) wumbolo ^^^ 22:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a connection to User:84percent? That question was for him. But since you're here, do you agree with my question? We have to address one argument at a time. It goes without saying that everything reported in WP:RS isn't automatically WP:DUE, but you haven't shown how those other shootings and mentions are similar to this one, and we'd need to compare with a named inspiration where a shooting was included in their article. Glib responses do not advance complicated discussions. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Wumbolo, I see that the difference here is that the Christchurch shooter specifically named Owens as his primary influence; the Quebec City shooter merely heavily followed Ben Shapiro's twitter, and the baseball shooter merely worked on the Bernie Sanders campaign. Your concern is certainly worth discussing, but we can't equate these subjects. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

A compromise which may be more precise than using the word "for" could be: "Journalist Robert Evans noted that the shooter could be a genuine fan of Owens, considering her right-leaning views on immigration and gun control, but he and many others have opined that...." Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer, we've been needing fresh eyes on this. What is your opinion on whether to include the highlighted text: "The gunman who committed the Christchurch mosque shootings produced a “manifesto” where he wrote that Owens had "influenced [him] above all". Journalist Robert Evans noted that the shooter could be a genuine fan of Owens, considering her right-leaning views on immigration and gun control, but he and many others have opined that the shooter may have been simply name-dropping a polarizing cultural figure in order to troll the media." Note that the second sentence is entirely different, but the highlighted text is where editors have specifically disagreed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: Why did you ping "BullRangifer" here and no other editors? I suggest notifying other editors who have previously been interested in this section or debate, regardless of their preference, otherwise it may appear you are WP:CANVASSING. 84percent (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@84percent:, I have pinged User:Bus stop. Can you guess a good faith reason why I might have pinged User:BullRangifer instead of implying that I pinged them because you think I share their preference? --Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

84percent, there is no vote, RFC, or anything else that's so pressing that inviting people could create any problem. Nothing's hidden here, so AGF. Instead of griping, try participating. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I could ping Volunteer Marek and Ymblanter to ask if we should include the highlighted clause in the sentence: "Journalist Robert Evans noted that the shooter could be a genuine fan of Owens, considering her right-leaning views on immigration and gun control..."[6][7]. What do you think? Do you remember any other editors who have made edits to the Christchurch article section or participated in these related talk page sections but are brand new or alternately have been gone for a while? Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

We should take him at his word and give it maximum weight, and treat the "name-dropping" and "trolling" commentary as speculation with much less weight. We can't give more weight to such speculation and allow it to undermine the primacy of what he said, especially since what he said, from his POV, makes complete sense. (The 9/11 attackers actions made complete sense, from their POV, and the speculations of conspiracy theorists don't make sense.)

OTOH, if his comments hadn't made sense, we'd give more weight to such speculation. To illustrate how that would work, let's look at this hypothetical situation: A left-wing gunman attacked a racist gathering and was killed. His writings show he was opposed to racism and white supremacy, but his last declaration before he did it stated that his heroes and motivators were well-known right-wing white supremacist racists. In that case, speculation about trolling would make complete sense and we'd give it more weight. The idiot was obviously trying to poison the well against his ideological enemies and smear them as part of his last act.

The current situation shows no evidence of trolling. He was speaking the truth about his motives and motivators. That it thus gives Owens a bad name among those who don't like what he did (and elevates her status among fellow bigots) is incidental to the facts. That's the way it always is. Give his words the full weight they deserve and only slight mention to the speculation (a general sentence with a bunch of refs at most). Use common sense. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Robert Evans' analysis of the manifesto has been cited by many secondary sources:[8]. A lot of it is both sincere and trolling at the same time. I would agree with toning down the language "name-dropping" and "trolling". Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Well...I think it is most appropriate to use the word "shitposting", which is the specific form of trolling the journalist describes. I didn't add the disputed clause but I replaced the Atlantic reference with Evans' words. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

So, let me get this right. We should give maximum weight to a maniac gunman's ethno nationalism ramblings, and much less or no weight to the reporting that the aforementioned rambling was deliberately manufactured to inspire blame and divide? Do you see really no issue with that? You say there's "no evidence of trolling" and he was "speaking the truth"; (a) there are countless reliable sources stating otherwise; and (b) I invite you to read the manifesto -- you will change your mind. 84percent (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

We give the source (the maniac) primacy about their own opinions. We give real reporting of facts lots of weight too. What we don't do is give opinions and speculations the same weight. They do not know what was in the mind of that maniac gunman, and their speculations are likely to be colored by their own political persuasions, which then interpret the gunman. Unless they (and we) have evidence to the contrary, they (and we) must take the gunman at his word when he says why he did it and who inspired him. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: it might help to see where User:84percent is coming from by reading some of our history:[9] There are pretty particular standards you have to go by when using reliable sources. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

2nd Amendment spelling

84percent, I understand it's usually written "Amendment to the Constitution", I just thought it would better with parentheses using "of", as in 2nd Amendment (of the Constitution). I even saw that language here: https://constitutionus.com/ But I dunno. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, I dunno either. Change it back if you like -- maybe I'm wrong. I've always seen to written as "to", as it's an amendment i.e. a change to the Constitution ("change of" doesn't sound quite right). I'm not from the U.S. however. Your call -- I won't revert. 84percent (talk) 02:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Fringe commentary on left-wing violence and the Southern Strategy

Owens asserted that "All of the violence this year primarily happened because of people on the left." It is entirely reasonable to note that RS rebutted her inane statement, yet the editor MPS1992 removed RS text that noted that the assertion is false.[10]

Owens also made some BS claims about the Southern Strategy. Her WP:FRINGE assertions should be described as such, yet the editor MPS1992 changed the language so that the mainstream viewpoint is no longer reflected.[11] The text now instead makes it seem as if there is a reasonable academic debate about whether the Southern Strategy was a thing.

The editor MPS1992's edits should be reverted in full. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree editor MPS1992's edits should be reverted in full. We can discuss whether this line: "Her claim was disputed by those who state that the existence of the Southern Strategy dates back to the Civil Rights era." can be added differently, but we should leave the text intact until further discussion. The word "false" should absolutely be kept. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely not. See "That notion is popular among some conservatives" [12] and "The issue has long been a controversial one." [13]. wumbolo ^^^ 11:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. It is WP:SYNTH to conflate Owens's comment on violence with a Washington Post analysis of murders. wumbolo ^^^ 11:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The article in Yahoo! News links to a single opinion piece by Dinesh D'Souza. Princeton University historian Kevin Kruse has dismantled D'Souza's ahistorical argument. Conservatives repeating false claims does not make the claims not false; it does not give more weight to the description "controversial" than "false". If you want to argue that "controversial" deserves more weight, we're going to need more than tangential stories from Yahoo! News and The Hill. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding WP:SYNTH, you didn't read the source. The source is Business Insider. The article is specifically about Candace Owens and it uses the information from a Washington Post article to dispute her statements. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Donald Trump Jr.

The article currently has a paragraph about Donald Trump Jr. praising Owens for a thing she said. In my opinion, that violates WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE and WP:Recentism. wumbolo ^^^ 22:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

It's in the headline of the source.  This is about her testifying before Congress.  It's the most high profile thing she's ever done.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Headlines are unreliable sources. Donald Trump Jr.'s opinion is the least profile thing she's ever received. Even if President Trump responded, it would not be WP:DUE, because there are many Trump news cycles every day. wumbolo ^^^ 09:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

You haven't actually responded to the substance of my comment.  The source discusses Trump Jr.'s comments and gives weight to them through the headline.  If Trump had commented on the most high profile thing Owens had done we should certainly consider including his comments.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

No, the headline gives zero weight. Try WP:RSN or WP:RSP, where the website is usually considered clickbait. wumbolo ^^^ 17:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

There is consensus that Newsweek is generally reliable. Blogs under Newsweek, including The Gaggle, should be handled with the WP:NEWSBLOG policy. From 2013 to 2018, Newsweek was owned by IBT Media, the parent company of International Business Times; its articles from this time period should be scrutinized more carefully. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah my bad. Headlines are ignored at WP:RSN and WP:RSP. Though you know why? Because they are universally terrible. So let me get this straight – you are citing a headline which falsely states that Owens has defended Hitler? wumbolo ^^^ 21:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Though I'm not going to edit the article again because I can't remember that it has a WP:1RR imposed restriction. Good luck developing and copyediting the article, Kolya! wumbolo ^^^ 21:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Fringe commentary on African-Americans belong

One editor cited "BLP" to remove reliably sourced content about comments Owens made about African-Americans having it best in the period 1965-1965.[14] The removal of this content is of course complete nonsense. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

But we'd need better sources than The Daily Beast, and more to show it's notable. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Both Fox News and Newsweek, which are characterized as RS on the RS noticeboard even though they are both far worse than DB, covered this[15][16]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

47.18.30.82 (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC) Can you put her political party as "Republican" now and "Democrat" in the past?

Candace Owens being protected.

Why is Candace Owens being protected across all platforms. She said a very racist insult to one of our congresswomen and they won’t let me edit it into her page. I have evidence to back up my statements. So what are you afraid of? Truthspeaker199 (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

“When an ISIS terrorist who married her own brother tries to deflect Tucker Carlson’s valid points. ☕️

(Who knew childish name-calling could work both ways?!)”

That’s her quote. She is spreading propaganda which is dangerous. It can’t be blamed on any other news source since she didn’t reference any. In fact this could be interpreted as a call for violence. Wouldn’t you want to remove a terrorist from your society? They might kill a lot of people if you don’t. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthspeaker199 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2019

Candace Owens is married to George Farmer, son of Michael Farmer, a British peer and businessman. The couple were married in the UK on 31st August 2019. https://publish.twitter.com/?query=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FRealCandaceO%2Fstatus%2F1168152733511278592&widget=Tweet Bibliothèque de Grenoble (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Twitter is not a reliable source. — MRD2014 (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2019

Candace Farmer (née Owens) ..

On September 1, 2019, Owens married George Farmer, son of Michael Farmer, a British peer and businessman at the Albermarle Estate in Charlottesville, Virginia.

https://spectator.us/candace-owens-charlottesville-wedding/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ivHpucrpSc 86.178.36.16 (talk) 10:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. Please make a precise request. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Bitchute channel for video's which a number of video's where removed by Youtube

Candance owens maintains at least two video channels. Some creators make special video's for Bitchute only. She should have those video's shown as some get removed by Youtube periodically. At least two of her video's have been removed by Youtube later replaced because of enough people complained they've been removed. Without this channel you will lose critical content that makes up this lady.

• "Candace Owens". bitchute.

--OxAO (talk) 05:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:EL allows us to include an external link to her official website, but she doesn't have one so I think her Youtube page is probably the next best thing. However, it's not our job to make sure she gets clicks. At best, including a bitchute link just seems redundant, and at worst we're directing users to an even more unstable and unscrupulous clone of a site that's already somewhat questionable. Nblund ^talk 15:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't what a person does be presented? leaving out what video's are being removed doesn't give people a chance to view the issues that is presented. The educational channels such as Linux, math, science fiction channels. There are Christian channels, devout Muslims and Buddhist channels. The claim it's "unscrupulous" is unfounded. --OxAO (talk) 03:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

We already present what she does in the article and with a link to her Youtube page. Nblund ^talk 16:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant information throughout article

There are several sentences throughout the article that clearly have no relevance to the subject named in the article. E.g.:

An analysis by The Washington Post showed that at least 20 people died in suspected right-wing attacks, whereas only one person died in suspected left-wing attacks.[41]

In 2005, Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman formally apologized to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), a national civil rights organization, for the Southern strategy, calling it "wrong".[53]

Politifact states that the NRA was actually founded by Union Civil War veterans to improve soldiers' marksmanship.[62][63]

An attempt was made to remove some of the irrelevant content, however it was reversed. These sentences seem to be in conflict with several principles, such as WP:IRI, WP:NORDR (specifically 'Point of view contrasted with another viewpoint'), WP:RELNOT, and perhaps others. Can a clear explanation be provided why there is an indirect relevance exemption for these examples? - HarryLarold (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Starting with the NRA text, this information is from sources discussing Owens' false statements.  I'm not sure why they wouldn't be relevant.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

This is an article about Candance Owens, not about the founding of the NRA. - HarryLarold (talk) 04:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

If that's the extent of your argument you have no justification to remove the content. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Why the adversarial tone? We are in this together and should work collaboratively to follow wiki policy. I'm looking for clarification based on the policy mentioned above. A dismissive response is unproductive and not helpful. - HarryLarold (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Could you repeat back my argument to me so I know whether what I have said thus far has been received as intended? Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I would politely request that you please stop referring to this as an argument. As a new contributor, the goal of posting on this talk page was to seek clarification, not to claim victory. Anyway, the takeaway I got from your response is that Owen's statements were false and the RSs provide evidence supporting this conclusion. - HarryLarold (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I feel like you're trolling me so I'll let someone else take over, but I will say that no exception is needed to include this information, because it is directly relevant.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I feel like this is another dismissive response that avoids responding to my concerns, and I don't particularly feel good about it. I'll attempt to present a view for your stance, and that would be that it's relevant for the purpose of presenting a conclusion about the veracity of Owens' statements. The problem is that it lacks a NPOV when a RS for a counter-argument is not given. If there isn't one it doesn't seem appropriate to include on a BLP. A common thread on this talk page is the lack of a NPOV in this article, and it's not hard to see why. - HarryLarold (talk) 00:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

HarryLarold, that note about the NRA, for instance, is there to indicate that, ahem, the person was obviously wrong; I looked at the sources and those specifically address her and her incorrect claims. So all these acronyms you throw at it don't really matter. In fact, if an editor would change "To the contrary, Politifact states" to "According to Politifact, Owens was totally incorrect and made a 'ridiculous' claim when she said that...", it's hard to argue against that. So, if I were you, I wouldn't complain so much, given that the claim she made is prima facie ridiculous. According to reliable sources, anyway. Drmies (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Ad hominem comment

A response likes this presents the same way as one of an individual who isn't here to contribute to a high quality encyclopedia. Instead, it suggests an individual concerned with destroying those with whom they disagree. I would prefer not to interact with you further. Thank you - HarryLarold (talk) 00:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC) Drmies does more for making Wikipedia a high quality encyclopaedia in a week or probably even the average day than you've likely done in your whole life. If you don't want to discuss how this article can be improved with highly experienced Wikipedians then you really have no purpose here as this talk page is solely for discussions on how we can improve the article not for random rants. Nil Einne (talk) 06:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Cool. I did say I was a new contributor, but I'm glad you took this opportunity to directly attack my inexperience. The fact is the NRA is unequivocally a civil rights organization. I haven't done research on whether the NRA has ever trained black Americans to arm and protect themselves from the KKK, but it doesn't seem particularly far fetched. It doesn't seem clear that Owens was making the claim that the NRA was founded as a black civil rights organization, which appears to be the interpretation of these RSs. I guess these points are all irrelevant and can be discarded in favor of ideological possession. I'm really disinterested in continuing any of this further because it's clear that the editors of this page have zero interest in nuance or representing this black woman in a fair light. Goodbye - HarryLarold (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

This currently used reference does not discuss the subject of the article, so I agree with @HarryLarold that it should be removed. I think instead the wording of the paragraph should reflect this currently used reference. So I propose the following change:

To the contrary, Politifact states that the NRA was actually founded by Union Civil War veterans to improve soldiers' marksmanship Politifact researched this claim and concluded “The claim is not only inaccurate but ridiculous…”Nowa (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Huh? The language you crossed out as well as your proposed language are both in the Atlanta Black Star source. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The language I crossed out was not specifically about C. Owen's statement. The language I'm proposing was a notable reaction to her statement.Nowa (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The language you're proposing is a notable reaction to her statement, but it's less informative. The Atlanta Black Star states that Politifact "never found any evidence supporting Owens’ and Alford’s suggestion. The platform cited an excerpt from the NRA’s website about its founding, which explains the organization was started due to the poor marksmanship of union soldiers." We could change it to:

Politifact researched this claim and concluded that "The claim is not only inaccurate but ridiculous"; the NRA was actually founded by Union Civil War veterans to improve soldiers' marksmanship.

Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I read through the Politifact reference and it was not in response to C. Owens statement but in response to an earlier statement made by H. Alford. So I would expand this article to say:

Other black leaders have also made this claim in the past. In 2013, Harry Alford, founder of the National Black Chamber of Commerce made the same assertion. At the time, Politifact researched the claim and could find no evidence to support it. Regarding its founding, the NRA web site states “Dismayed by the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops, Union veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association in 1871. The primary goal of the association would be to ‘promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis’”.Nowa (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

In that case it makes sense to remove the direct PolitiFact quote, so I think we should leave the article as it is now. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood my point. I don't give a flying flip about your inexperience and I don't think any of us really do either. I was simply pointing out that Drmies is an incredibly experience editor who has done a tremendous amount to "contribute to a high quality encyclopedia" including on BLPs. Your attack on Drmies was not on point since you clearly have no idea who they are and what they've done. I think most of here are highly interested in representing all subjects of articles whatever their gender identity or ethnicity, in a fair light. When editors make reasonable suggestions on how to improve articles to ensure we are doing so, based on our policies and guidelines, we can discuss this, as happened above. When editors refuse to engage with other editors to do so based on bullshit claims, then of course it's going no where. Nil Einne (talk) 09:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:DFTT:

S---posting is the act of throwing out huge amounts of content, most of it ironic, low-quality trolling, for the purpose of provoking an emotional reaction in less Internet-savvy viewers.[17]

Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Fact-checks of Owens's fringe rhetoric are not irrelevant. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• Completely undue and misleading. Frankly I am disappointed that Snoogans is calling a BLP an idiot in edit summaries, edit warring against multiple editors, and I don't even understand the start a blog comment. It makes little sense, but so do their arguments for inclusion. PackMecEng (talk) 01:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

It is certainly hard to claim a non-bias when you are directly attacking the subject of the BLP. One should be highly suspect of any contribution made by an individual in such an event. 2600:1700:6200:AC60:A041:CCAA:7A5C:6E1A (talk) 00:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

View on climate change

[18] At around 1:30 Owens states that she does not believe in climate change. DN (talk) 10:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Clearly biased Wiki on Candace

As someone who is very familiar with Candace Owens and her work, the bias in this Wikipedia entry is glaringly obvious. Every time someone quotes her criticisms of something, they simply include quotes like "stupid" or "weak." They present her criticisms as overly simplistic, one-dimensional or ad hominem, leaving out her well-articulated points altogether. I can only assume that this is to mislead readers into thinking she is not intellectually rigorous (which is false) or they are afraid to present her arguments in fair light lest the audience actually be informed of the valid points of the other side. It's disingenuous. The worst example is presenting Ted Lieu's taking Candace's "Hitler" quote out of context as somehow valid. It was clearly lacking in context as if to suggest she was somewhat supportive or condoning of Hitler, which is absurd. She owned him on the spot and defender herself well, but the political Left was well aware that the quote itself--however well refuted--would live on around the internet and on Wikipedia pages like this. Intellectually dishonest and narrow minded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.213.220.140 (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more - HarryLarold (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Can you suggest an edit to improve the NPOV of he article? I'd be happy to support it.Nowa (talk) 13:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The main article is too rife with dripping POV to cite each and every one... Such content serves to diminish Wiki's reputation severely. Locking the article flags it as such. 68.111.65.87 (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia as well as most media is dominated by Leftist. This wikipedia on Candace is sickening. They trample any free speech by middle america and conservatives. Candace speaks the truth and the left just cannot handle it as it does not fit their political narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.220.214 (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

A note on those pundits for right wing values

It should be noted for people like Candace that their rise in media is clearly a result of access give to them by rightwing incubators willing to promote them. By incubators,I mean media giants like Fox News. These powerful people promoters mean everything to the story of so many individuals whose products are ideas and show. These media incubators are literally always available to the next idea of people like Candace yet not available to all people. These powerful media entities in the story of people like Candace are equivalent to a school or a powerful wealthy family background. It should be written in as part of the background of people like Candace to show the infleunce of connection and opportunity in their public rise. 113.53.155.174 (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Controversies

Anything added to the "Controversies" section should include an explanation, with sources, as to what sort of public controversy existed, who took issue with her remarks and on what basis. That is, what is the other side of the controversy? Mere astonishment at her remarks is not a controversy. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. We avoid controversy sections on BLPs for this reason. See WP:CSECTION. StAnselm (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Aye, having a controversy section can be quite a fickle road since the whole point of an article, not to mention one of the pillars of Wikipedia is to have a WP:NPOV, having an entire section labeled controversies is usually quite lop-sided, mainly leaning towards negative, if you do have such a section it has to reflect all viewpoints, which contradicts the point of the section.EliteArcher88 (talk) 05:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Words to avoid

Can someone please fix this editor's entry here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Candace_Owens&diff=960835983&oldid=960801761

Per WP:CLAIM.

Thanks.--2604:2000:E010:1100:35C8:77F8:541C:1E7C (talk) 05:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done StAnselm (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

<

COVID rhetoric

The editor StAnselm removed RS content about Owens's COVID rhetoric. The content should be restored immediately. Laughably, the editor chose to keep a random-ass quote devoid of any context while removing her substantive remarks regarding COVID (which provide context for the quote). The content should be restored immediately. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, it was a "sarcastic tweet" - so quite obviously not "substantive remarks". StAnselm (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

They were substantive remarks. She was downplaying the seriousness of the COVID pandemic, which was the target of her sarcastic remark ("Now we’re all going to die from Coronavirus.") The text does not portray her sarcastic remark as if it were not sarcastic, so I'm unclear what your thinking process is here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

We can certainly have a section on Coronavirus under "views" if we can find more than just a single tweet. StAnselm (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Anyone who posts a Ghana pallbearers meme is "downplaying the seriousness of COVID" in the same manner but that doesn't constitute a public controversy nor a significant view. If the purpose of highlighting Owens' COVID remarks in the article is to prove something about her that Snooganssnoogans personally believes ought to be proven (but no published source has attempted to so prove) then that is original research. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

PS: Here's a challenge. Suppose that someone reads the text about Owens' COVID remarks and responds, "Yeah, she said it. So what?" If you have a published source that answers that question, summarize its answer. If you don't, then you haven't established a reason to include it in the article. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020

This article is biased from beginning to end. The tone is entirely derisive. How many times do Wikipedia articles include insights including that the subject didn't finish college because of a dispute regarding financial aid? Wikipedia may survive publishing biased content like all major media, but its reputation just took another big hit by indulging in political sabotage. 47.41.86.43 (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2020

184.90.86.13 (talk) 04:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

You state near the end of this commentary that Candace falsely accuses Mr. Soros as in-sighting riots... How on earth do you know and state that as fact... when that theory is still being discovered. My opinion, this Wiki outline demonstrates much bias.

 Not done This isn’t in the proper format of “change x to y” as stipulated in the notice when editing. Regardless, we go with what reliable sources say, and don’t promote conspiracy theories. There’s absolutely no evidence for what you claim, as noted by reliable reliable sources. (Also, it’s “incite”, not “in-sight”). Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 06:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2020

Typo under George Floyd protests

"Later month, she argued that George Floyd" should be:

"Later that month, she argued that George Floyd" Milezteg (talk) 07:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 17:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Her "false" claim about George Floyd protests

A registered editor with a couple of dozens of edits under their name removed the word "false" in front of Owens's falsehood that George Soros was behind the protests.[19] The text should be restored ASAP. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, obviously false. P-K3 (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

But, her claim has been reported by other news organizations. I think this page should present both sides of the issue, as it is a matter of dispute. Shoebringer (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

You added a 2016 article from the Moonie Times to support Owens's 2020 claim. That's what's called WP:SYNTH. Also, the Moonie Times is not a reliable source. You should self-revert. The article is covered by the following editing restriction, which you have violated: "You may not make more than one revert on this article in any 24 hour period. This is due to an arbitration decision which authorised discretionary sanctions for edits and pages relating to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. If you breach the restriction on this page, you may be blocked or otherwise sanctioned. Please edit carefully." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit; it is not controversial that Soros supports the BLM movement, but Owens claimed that Soros actually paid people to protest, which is a different matter entirely. The Washington Times article (which is not reliable on matters of race anyway, per WP:RSP) is 4 years old and therefore obviously did not mention Owens' claims. Black Kite (talk) 23:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I've added new information which fixes the article. Shoebringer (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

So you've inserted the material again in a slightly different form, therefore violating 1RR for a second time. [Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Shoebringer_reported_by_User:Black_Kite_(Result:_)|WP:AN3]]. Black Kite (talk) 01:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Notability?

How, what and why does she and not hundreds of others who have opinions not have a Wikipedia aka "encyclopedia" article about them? What makes her more notable than anyone else? Couldn't she be included in an article about whatever she's supposedly "notable" for instead? IrishLas (talk) 01:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

She is arguably a significant political figure. She is arguably a pioneer of "Blexit". She has significant political contacts and outreach. She does not conform to some political stereotyping.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

She is notable for you to find her Wikipedia page isn't she? Saying she isn't notable seems to be grasping for straws in my opinion, look at how big her talk page is, do you think somebody not notable enough would have this much to talk about? She is in the news cycle regularly, has a huge social media following, is one of the top people leading the "Blexit" movement and has been included in congressional hearings.MaximusEditor (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I second that this is a rather strange question to be asking. There are 400 articles in Category:American political commentators and several hundred in Category:American political activists and its descendants. They all are "more notable than anyone else" because they have sustained coverage of their opinions that is printed in third-party sources. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@IrishLas: - Candace Owen only became "notable/noticeable" after Trump saw Candace Owens' youtube video berating black people. Trump really liked it. [20] As the RS explains, Candace Owens was not even a blip on anyone's radar until Trump saw her racially divisive video she posted mocking and spreading contempt against black people, "She became the new darling of President Donald Trump at lightning speed last month when a video of her berating black protesters at the University of California, Los Angeles."

In the age of Twitter/youtube, the more irrational, paranoid, divisive and simple-minded the tweet/video, the more noticeable and visible the person becomes. In the age of twitter/youtube, "Notability" has absolutely nothing to do with a person having any intellectual thought or developing intelligent proposals to meet the complexities of society - as evidenced by Candace Owen doing absolutely nothing except spreading divisive, polarizing, racially-charged, paranoid and simple-minded tweets/videos to become "notable/noticeable" enough to earn her a wikipage. [21][22] BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! IrishLas (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2020

Change: In June 2020, she falsely claimed that George Soros paid people to protest the killing of George Floyd.[92] Shortly afterwards, she argued that George Floyd, who was killed by a police officer who knelt on his neck for almost nine minutes, "was not a good person. I don't care who wants to spin that."[93] She said, "The fact that he has been held up as a martyr sickens me."[93] President Trump retweeted Owens's remarks about Floyd.

to: George Floyd protests In June 2020, she falsely claimed that George Soros paid people to protest the killing of George Floyd.[92] Shortly afterwards, she argued that George Floyd, who was killed by a police officer who knelt on his neck for almost nine minutes, "was not a good person. I don't care who wants to spin that."[93] She said, "The fact that he has been held up as a martyr sickens me."[93] President Trump retweeted Owens's remarks about Floyd. Owens went on further to say "[W]hy are we pretending that this criminal should be upheld as a citizen?" suggesting that she believes criminals are not American citizens or have the same rights.

References: https://www.facebook.com/realCandaceOwens/videos/273957870461345/ MreditorJG (talk) 05:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The additional quote maybe (though we'd prefer to cite a secondary source discussing the comment, rather than the comment itself), but the rest of it is your interpretation of what she said, which is original research and cannot be included in a Wikipedia article. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2020

• • • • Not sure how this works but Candace said herself she is an Independent, not republican. 107.13.107.100 (talk) 16:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2020

X Falsity

In October 2018, Owens and the Donald Trump presidential campaign launched the Blexit movement, a social media campaign to encourage African Americans to abandon the Democratic Party and register as Republicans.

Y Truth directly from blexit about founders

Founders Candace Owens and Brandon Tatum came together because of their shared desire to build a better future for America. Candace and Brandon seek to educate minorities across America about the history of our great country by highlighting the principles of the Constitution of the United States and the importance of self-reliance. The two believe it is time to take criminal justice reform seriously to stop the over-incarceration of minorities, to build strong families in the minority communities, and to value the life and the sanctity of every individual. Nvchicky (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: WP:PROMO/WP:NPOV RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Belittling vandalism

The final sentence of the "Race relations" subsection as it currently stands reads as follows: "She has become affectionately known as Aunty Ruckus after the beloved character Uncle Ruckus of Boondocks fame." This is clearly vandalism and should be removed. Stationary Action (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The material has been removed. KidAd (talk) 01:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

KidAd I don't know how but the material was somehow restored because I just removed it now. I'm still puzzled as to how a protected article about a person with a lot of current views could have featured this blatant vandalism for three days now. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Unknown Temptation, I have placed a request for an increase in page protection. KidAd (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Unknown Temptation, Thanks KidAd for the page protection request.MaximusEditor (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2020

In the 'Personal Life' section, "In early-2019, three weeks after they met, Owens became engaged George Farmer of England" should read "In early-2019, three weeks after they met, Owens became engaged to George Farmer of England". Serhatserhatserhat (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done KidAd (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Employer

In the infobox it says that her employer is PragerU but I cannot find a citation. All I can find is confirmation that she has a show on PragerU but that does not mean she works as an employee for PragerU. Without a source, that should be removed from the box. Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Ihaveadreamagain here is a WP:RS from The Hill citing her employment with PragerU. MaximusEditor (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The Hill only says she has a show on that platform. It says nothing about employment. Many people have programs on channels but that has nothing to do with employment. Ihaveadreamagain 15:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)