Talk:Candace Owens

Economic Conditions?

In the article someone wrote: "She has attributed economic improvements for African-Americans to Trump's presidency, however fact-checkers (the writer never stated which ones) have noted that economic outcomes improved for African-Americans throughout Obama's tenure as president." They then provide a link which only mentions unemployment, not "economic conditions." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:A980:2730:28A9:F6CD:AC9B:4EE4 (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Candace Owens: Hitler was 'Ok' until he tried to go global .

New source from the Daily Beast- [1]. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC) This is grossly misquoted, listen to the entire article. She was defining/explaining nationalism. This kind of reporting is unprofessional and dishonest.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2019

remove "far right" and replace with right-wing, using "FAR" I find insulting and a ploy used by leftist to discredit opposing views through identity politics 2607:FEA8:BE0:1460:4507:EB91:FA4A:7634 (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Claiming that far right should be replaced with right-wing on the premise that it is a leftist ploy requires some evidence that there is a bias. Otherwise, your claim is baseless and trite. Without any political preference and from the most neutral point of view I can imagine, it seems obvious that Candace Owens is far right based on her extreme statements. All those statements are well cited and referenced. Far right should stay.

I can easily state that Candace Owens is actively trying to push the Overton Window by making extreme comments and defending them - but that's not citable, referenceable, or a well sourced view. 2600:1700:7A51:10B0:901D:1753:DE2F:D3B (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

"Far-right"

Can we state that she is "far-right" in Wiki voice or should we attribute this to "some media outlets". Multiple RS, such as NBC News[2], Daily Beast[3] and Gizmodo[4] describe her as "far-right". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

One editor restored the edit calling her "far-right" in Wiki voice, claiming that it was the long-standing version.[5] For what its worth, I'm not sure this is a long-standing version (even though it's my preferred one). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• USA Today calls her a Conservative pundit. Just because you can find sources describing her a certain way doesn't mean we should label her as something across the board based on your cherry picking and desire to smear Conservative subjects. This is a BLP and we attribute. You are the one who reverted two editors to install your preferred version maligning her as far right without any clarification or attribution. Her positions and politics should be noted but we shouldn't be cherrypicking weak sources like the Daily Beast and Gizmodo to disparage a subject. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
• NBC News describes her as Conservative. The Hill calls her a conservative activist. These are the reliable independent sources I find when I Google "Candace Owens". FloridaArmy (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
• Another Hill article describing her conservative activity. None of the sources I'm finding with a generalized search refer to her as right wing. So we should include that description with attribution noting that she has been described that way rather than falseley generalize and misrepresent what most sources say. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

It was one of my edits that changed the wording to "conservative" because it was my understanding that there's no evidence to suggest that she is far-right and frankly i'm seeing these extreme terms being applied far too broadly for them to have any meaning. If we're going to start using the media's perception of what "far-right" and "far-left" is instead of actual evidence of the person's views or any examination of that and her actions against what the definitions of the words are then i guess it is what it is. But snarkily responding to my words using 3 articles that just state she's far-right in the title doesn't cut it with me. We should do better here at Wikipedia, but i guess this is the "consensus".Sonicadv27 (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The third article cited to back the "far-right" smear is an embarrassingly opinionated editorial piece that establishes its sensationalism in its title. None of these articles, to my knowledge, make a case for her being far-right, they merely call her that in the title. If we are going to paint someone with a brush that also defines extremists like Richard Spencer, then surely evidence is needed beyond editorials and generic titles. Larousse1995 (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I find it an insult to the label 'conservative' to give her that descriptor. True conservative values are not stridently argumentative. --Avanu (talk) 04:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)--- ~~

So... views like, "Geoge Soros funds BLM protesters," "African-Americans had it better 100 years after slavery than they do now," "Gloal warming isn't real," etc., are not considered far-right? Or they are and you just want RS that say directly that she is? Persistent Corvid (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

To follow up my comment, what label is a fitting one to describe her youtube show? Merely "consevative web show" or "Far-right conservative web show"? As they say, the 'proof' is in the pudding. Persistent Corvid (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2019

Change any and all instances of "far-right" or "alt-right" descriptions of Candace Owens to "conservative".

She is irrefutably nothing more than a run of the mill conservative. The magnitude of leftist extremism pushing the left wing farther and farther left every day has no impact on where Candace Owens is on the spectrum. I could see how an alt-left extremist could see Candace as "far" right due to the fact that the communism and socialism are far left ideologies.

More importantly, the sources cited as proof that Candace is "far-right" do not prove or show any evidence of such a claim. Furthermore, Candace Owens has never identified or proclaimed herself to be "far-right" or "alt-right". She has repeatedly, consistently, and on numerous occasions explained that she is merely a conservative.

Continuing to allow this page to state that Candace is "far-right" is an outright falsehood. Otherwise known as fake news. Please do not taint the reputation of Wikipedia with propaganda such as this. Please, stay factual. Natecarson2019 (talk) 13:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. All such instances in the article appear to be well-sourced. No further proof or evidence is required under Wikipedia policy. If you feel this needs to be changed, please seek consensus, and seek other avenues of dispute resolution if needed. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2019

Per WP:RS and NPOV, I respectfully request that the description of Candace Owens as "far right" come with an in-text attribution of the sources cited to the description. If you take a few minutes to read through the 3 articles cited, the last two are heavily, heavily biased. They are both laced with insultingly ironic statements and cruel cynicism. The first article, the only neutral one of the bunch, refrains from classifying Ms. Owens as far-right at all. It does mention often her relationship with the far right, but also explains her identity as a Conservative:

"By the summer of 2017, YouTube had become a destination, and a major funding stream, for a new crop of conservative political commentators, each with their own niche corner of the market. Armed with a new ideology, Owens quickly found a new home, alongside millennials, gays and gamers preaching right-wing politics in online videos."

The article further mentions how Ms. Owens has actually eschewed fringe-right movements in recent times, to the point of "hurting Alex Jones's feelings".

I definitely understand that the bias of an article does not make it fail the WP:RS test, and that sources do not have to be neutral. However, given that the only clear wording that labels Ms. Owens as far-right comes from very opinionated sources, an in-text attribution of the sources is appropriate per WP:RS. A consensus has been established throughout this talk page that something needs to be done about the wording of her political identity, and I think it is more than reasonable to merely attribute the definition to the opinionated sources rather than remove the definition entirely. Larousse1995 (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 22:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources for "right-wing" vs "far-right" vs "conservative" in light of the Christchurch shooting

Just a list at the moment TRT - "right-wing commentator" The Atlantic - "far-right personality" Evening Standard - "conservative activist" Daily Mail "right-wing firebrand" (Yes, Daily Mail and therefore not usable, but included for completeness) NY Times - "conservative commentator" Sydney Morning Herald - "darling of the far right" Business Insider "popular right-wing figure" New Statesman - "right-wing commentator" Buzzfeed - "far-right influencer" Independent - "right-wing influencer" SFGate - "conservative commentator"

Interestingly, mainstream US sources seem more ready to describe her as "conservative" whereas alternative and foreign sources seem to go for "right-wing". Black Kite (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2019

Redacted, text copied from Philly.com

75.105.125.202 (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done – We don't copy-and-paste copyrighted text into articles. – Þjarkur (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Mosque shooting manifesto

This text (restored twice by an account who commenced editing barely a week ago but already appears to be well conversant in Wikipedia policies) is WP:SYNTH. Afaict none of the articles juxtapose the two claims - that Owens was mentioned in the manifesto BUT that the mention of her was trolling. Hence, this is WP:OR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

In fact, the very first source explicitly says that we don't know which parts of the manifesto are serious and which ones are trolling.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

(I'm also unclear on how a non-auto-confirmed user is able to edit a semi-protected page. User:Ymblanter?) Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The account is auto-confirmed, at least as of now (1 week and 241 edits).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

International Business Times provides synthesis in the article "Candace Owens Laughs Off New Zealand Mosque Shooter Manisfesto Reference".[6] Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

"However, some experts weighed in regarding the discourse of the manifesto and opined that the gunman might have written it with the purpose of trolling American media, and hence references to Owens [...] should not be taken seriously." (International Business Times)
"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." (The Atlantic) Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I added just The Atlantic quote because it is more specific, balanced, and measured. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

In addition, I have now read that International Business Times is unreliable per WP:RSP. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Next time, please include my name so I get pinged, because you're referring to my edit. :-) I think the WP:RSs are very clear about the manifesto being intended to sow discord. I have no issue with somebody changing the wording or including better sources, however omitting it entirely is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE in a BLP. I concur that the Atlantic source is possibly the best one. By the way, my account history is irrelevant; please WP:AGF, WP:DNB and WP:APR. 84percent (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

84percent, Just The Atlantic and Business Insider are quoted. The word glib is the only quote from the Washington Post, but she was criticized there. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I think we could shorten/summarize her quotes, but for now I wanted to include the full quotes for accuracy and balance considering this is a biography, until we can agree on what to exclude. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

See the newer section below. 84percent (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Owens testifies at House Judiciary Committee hearing on "Hate Crimes and the Rise of White Nationalism"

Tons of coverage on Owens today. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Owens said the Republicans’ Southern strategy “never happened.” She said the rise in hate crimes was fake, from “manipulating statistics.” She called the Ku Klux Klan a “Democrat terrorist organization.” She mocked Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.); proclaimed that “the Russian collusion hoax has fallen apart”; declared that Trump is “bringing everybody together”; and said the real “family separation” crisis is “black babies separated from the wombs of black mothers.”[7]

It's just an opinion piece, but it gives you an idea of what has been reported about her testimony. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Great! Lots of awesome information indeed. I notice this page is lacking information on racism Owens has received by simply being a black conservative (she mentions it in the testimony). 84percent (talk) 03:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Full hearing on CSPAN:[8] --Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

"racism Owens has received by simply being a black conservative ". Lol. You got a reliable source to that effect? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2019

This review is so incredibly biased and clearly written by someone who is threatened by strong smart women of color who do not tow the slave masters libe, aka the democrat party. Occassionally wiki provides some information, but it is obvious when opinion is heavily applied vs. biographical facts. BTW, there is no science "cponcensus" regaridng CLIMATE CHANGE. 68.195.41.118 (talk) 04:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done – Is there something specific you'd like me to change? I also recognize that Wikipedia has systematic biases, however there is a common adage to editor policy: "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth". Because Wikipedia relies on information published in reliable sources (commonly the news media, which also has well-known slants), it's very difficult to solve issues of systemic bias. Anyway, comments like this are unhelpful unless you specify exactly what you suggest to be changed. 84percent (talk) 04:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Christchurch gunman section

@Kolya Butternut:, @Wumbolo:, and I, appear to be involved in a dispute over the section on the Christchurch gunman.

Here are versions we disagree with:

Wumbolo's version (reverted)

Owens made international headlines in March 2019 when she was mentioned in the manifesto of the gunman who committed the Christchurch mosque shootings as the person who “influenced [him] above all”. According to The Atlantic, the gunman's rhetoric may have been designed to troll Owens by "[inciting] Owens's critics to blame her" for the shooting. Owens rejected any connection to the shooter, telling Business Insider:

What happened last night in Christchurch, New Zealand is a tragedy and I echo the sentiment of all Americans, in wishing love and healing for all those impacted. That said, any insinuation that black conservatism in the United States has somehow inspired radical Islamophobic white supremacy terror overseas is pointedly absurd. People on both sides of the political aisle—especially the victims—deserve a more honest conversation.

84percent's original version

Owens made international headlines in March 2019 when she was mentioned in the manifesto of the gunman who committed the Christchurch mosque shootings as the person who “influenced [him] above all”. According to The Atlantic, the gunman's rhetoric may have been designed to troll: "Though the shooter could be a genuine fan of Owens, [...] this reference might be meant to incite Owens’s critics to blame her." Owens was criticized for her initial reaction to the news on Twitter, which The Washington Post called "glib". Owens rejected any connection to the shooter, telling Business Insider:

What happened last night in Christchurch, New Zealand is a tragedy and I echo the sentiment of all Americans, in wishing love and healing for all those impacted. That said, any insinuation that black conservatism in the United States has somehow inspired radical Islamophobic white supremacy terror overseas is pointedly absurd. People on both sides of the political aisle—especially the victims—deserve a more honest conversation.

84percent's version

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”. Hours after the shooting, Owen posted a tweet in reaction to allegations that she inspired the mass murder, which was criticized for including a laughing emoji and appearing glib. According to The Atlantic, the gunman's rhetoric may have been designed to troll: "Though the shooter could be a genuine fan of Owens, [...] this reference might be meant to incite Owens’s critics to blame her." She later rejected any connection to the shooter, telling Business Insider:

What happened last night in Christchurch, New Zealand is a tragedy and I echo the sentiment of all Americans, in wishing love and healing for all those impacted. That said, any insinuation that black conservatism in the United States has somehow inspired radical Islamophobic white supremacy terror overseas is pointedly absurd. People on both sides of the political aisle—especially the victims—deserve a more honest conversation.

84percent (talk) 06:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut's version

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”. According to The Atlantic, the gunman's rhetoric may have been designed to troll: "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." Owens rejected any connection to the shooter, claiming She also claimed that she never created any content espousing her views on the 2nd Amendment or Islam. But In fact, she has tweeted about the 2nd Amendment and Islam.[9]

84percent, you tagged this section as having too many quotes, so here's an improved version. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: I do not believe this is an improvement over my version. Plus, it is poor form to begin a senence with "But". Also, it seems you are trying to counter her rejection of connection to the shooter, which is absurd WP:LIBEL. 84percent (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from assuming bad faith. I feel it is clear that I am countering her false statements, not her rejection of connection to the shooter. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: I am not assuming bad faith. I believe you are acting with good intentions.

Unless the sources explicitly state that the part of the manifesto referring to Owens was trolling, you cannot say that, as that constitutes original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Many sources explicitly that the manifesto may have been designed to troll which is the wording used. There's no WP:SYNTH in regards to The Atlantic's quote. 84percent (talk) 09:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

There are too many direct quotes in the current version: we have Owen's statement in full, a big quote from The Atlantic, one from the The Washington Post, and now we have a full quote of Owen's initial Tweet. We seriously need to paraphrase. Wumbolo shortened The Atlantic quotation earlier, which Kolya Butternut reverted. In my version, the quotation is again shortened, but the only part omitted is an introduction about who Owens is (which is clearly covered already on this page). In my version, I've tried to keep it balanced. I've left in the news and even the "glib" remark, but I feel the quote is totally unnecessary. 84percent (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I only added the full twitter quote to balance out her other full quote. I would prefer that most of these two quotes be removed, but only including Owens' less reported response is non-neutral.
I think that it is extremely important to include the full Atlantic quote which explains why he could be a fan of hers, and because this is such a controversial subject I believe the quote should be reproduced exactly. It is non-neutral to remove this content from this context which shows not only why the shooter may like her, but that she made false statements in her initial response via Twitter.
The purpose of the single quoted word glib from the Washington Post was only to introduce the Twitter quote. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The Atlantic quote is not discussing why the shooter likes her. The quote doesn't suggest the shooter admired her because of her right-leaning views; that's WP:SYNTH (and in my opinion incorrect). This part of the quote is merely a short description of Owens, and is therefore unimportant. I understand why you included "glib", however it must at least be attributed to The Washington Post. I agree that only including Owen's latter response is non-neutral. 84percent (talk) 22:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

(Moved discussion down here.) 84percent (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I think it is absurd to say the quote is merely a short, unimportant, description of Owens. The Atlantic is clearly relating Owens' views to the context of the shooting, or the shooter's views. Do I need to go on? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I disagree for my aforementioned reason. The source is not explicity saying that; that's only your assumption. WP:SYNTH. This is a BLP. 84percent (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

So we both have different assumptions. In that case it is best to leave the quotation intact, and readers can form their own assumptions. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Considering that you have been editing this article and obviously know about Candace Owens, I cannot assume good faith here. Of all of the possible ways The Atlantic could describe Owens they choose to describe "immigration" and "gun control" which are obviously related to a shooting of immigrants. I find your behavior to be disruptive. This is a warning, please stop. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I hardly know about Candance Owens. I abhor many of her views, but that's entirely irrelevant; my only intention is to make sure the BLP is unbiased and factually correct. There were many misleading or incorrect statements I cleaned up in the past few days, such as the highly misleading section on Degree180. Here's my warning to you: assuming good faith is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, so please do not attack my character and avoid personal remarks in talk pages. I agree with you that the reader can make their own assumptions, however this is an encyclopedia, not a WP:QUOTEFARM. Surely you must agree that there are far too many quotes now? Something must be done to reduce the over-quoting. I believe we need a third pair of eyes to chime in here. 84percent (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: I've tried once again to include the initial Tweet with a WP:NPOV. What do you think? 84percent (talk) 04:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Based on the text of this article, and the research you have done to edit "many misleading or incorrect statements"[10], you are continuing to claim that a reasonable person would give a short description of Candace Owens as "Owens, who has been known to espouse right-leaning views on immigration and gun control"[11]? You are claiming that this is "merely a short description of Owens"[12] which is unrelated to the context of the mosque shooting? I want to make sure I understand your statements before escalating. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I think you should stop making contentious edits without achieving consensus. Please edit your "version" here in this talk page first, as I have done. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Here you state that I should attribute the word "glib" to the Washington Post[13] and yet when you added the word glib to the article you did not attribute it to the Washington Post[14]. How do you explain this? Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Your latest edit maintains the long quote from Business Insider,[15] but you continue to insist that the quote from The Atlantic be shortened because as you say:

Surely you must agree that there are far too many quotes now? "Something" must be done to reduce the over-quoting.[16]

How do you explain your behavior? Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: That sounds about right. I will state it more bluntly: A reasonable person would give a short description of Candace Owens as "Owens, who has been known to espouse right-leaning views on immigration and gun control". The journalist is providing context about Owens. Note that this is the first and only time the words "immigration", "gun control" are mentioned, because this is the first time Owens is being introduced to the reader. It is only an introduction, a short descriptor about who Owens is; hence it is not necessary to include that part of the quote. Context is often included for a variety of reasons, and there are other reasons than "why he could be a fan of hers". The journalist is not saying the shooter is a fan of Owens because of her views. In fact, the journalist is not saying whether the shooter is a fan at all. The journalist is saying that the shooter's reference to Owen may have been intentionally invented to create blame. That is the important take-away from the quote, which I've included. The introductory of Owens is wholly unimportant. 84percent (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

On the word "glib", I found another source using the same term from the third-person, so figured they would suffice. The source I found say she has been criticized for being too glib; they don't critisize her directly (i.e. my source does not write that she is glib; they write that others have called her glib, so it would be wrong to attribute the word "glib" to the observer). I would have included the Washington Post link too if I had it handy; I lost the link. I have no issue with you adding that reference as well. 84percent (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

You literally quoted the same story I quoted for glib, but when I added the word you stated that I should attribute glib to the Washington Post and when you added the word you did not attribute glib to the same story in the Chicago Tribune. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

No, you sourced The Washington Post. My source is RT. By the way, please WP:RELAX. 84percent (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

RT is not a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

That is the same story by the same author which is in the Chicago Tribune which you referenced. I understand you were using the "glib" from RT though. Both stories use the word. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Also the grammar and framing is so different.
Yours (paraphrasing):

Her "glib" comment:

Mine (also paraphrasing):

Her comment was criticized for appearing glib.

The different is major. 84percent (talk) 05:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I've already acknowledged you are referencing RT. I am asking you to notice that your Chicago Tribune source is the same story that I referenced which was first printed in the Washington Post. This is where the confusion comes from. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Back to The Atlantic quote, why do you believe that was how they chose to provide context? Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, right. I didn't notice the second story was the same. Thank you for pointing that out; that's my mistake for causing the confusion. On the quote: I think it's similar to how most people would sum Owen up. 84percent (talk) 05:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, if that's what you're going to say then I believe you are acting in bad faith and being disruptive, and it is time to escalate a warning and/or complaint. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

OK. I believe we are both acting in good faith and neither of us are being disruptive, however feel free to escalate however you see fit. Like I said previously, I believe we need a third pair of eyes to chime in here because we appear to be stuck. :-) 84percent (talk) 06:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: I believe the current version is very balanced and accurate. 84percent (talk) 06:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut WP:BLPBALANCE says we should write biographies conservatively, and 84percent does not have to give false balance to both sides. Also WP:PUBLICFIGURE calls for restraint and is the reason why we quote Owens more than her political opponents. wumbolo ^^^ 09:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Wumbolo, which quote by her "political opponents" are you referring to? Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I see that a 'third pair of eyes' was requested and here I am. Hey, y'all, stop removing reliable and relevantly sourced stuff. It's not gonna get us sued, and crying that it will is not cool. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: Thank you. Nothing in our discussion pertains to legal risk, as far as I'm aware. Can you please elaborate? Also, what exactly are you suggesting and why? 84percent (talk) 09:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• 84percent in a BLP, everything needs an inline reference. Please provide citations when adding any content. wumbolo ^^^ 09:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, that was a copy-paste mistake. I apologise. My previous version did in fact have citations. I will quickly fix it up. Done. 84percent (talk) 09:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Russia Today is not a reliable source. If no reliable source can be found for criticism of Owen's tweet, it doesn't belong to the article. wumbolo ^^^ 09:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Good point. Initially the source for the "glib" comment, added by Kolya Butternut, was The Washington Post (that link is a re-publishing of the WP's story; I don't have the original link handy right now). I originally suggested we attribute the "glib" criticism to The Washington Post, and later came across the RT source. If we throw away the RT source, do you think we should include a sentence about The Washington Post calling her Tweet glib? 84percent (talk) 09:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Split out a controversy section from political views

there are a few sections under Political view that should probably go under controversy (Molly Tibits, Bombings, etc) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul "The Wall" (talk • contribs) 19:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Created a new section. 84percent (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

84percent WP:CSECTION. wumbolo ^^^ 08:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I wasn't aware of this one. Reading up on it now. 84percent (talk) 08:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2019

Is this block put just in time when she plaught the stupid jolshewicks ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX89pxjQeQU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 06:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! 84percent (talk) 06:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Personal life

Owens is engaged to George Farmer, son of British peer Michael Farmer. Bibliothèque de Grenoble (talk) 06:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Done! 84percent (talk) 06:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Black unemployment

Snooganssnoogans if Trump continued the trend of lowering black unemployment to the lowest rate ever, wouldn't you say that his presidency can be cited as lowering black unemployment? No fact-checker disputes this, except some highly partisan ones. wumbolo ^^^ 09:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

She's attributing the trend to actions taken by Trump. That's just bad economics, and fact-checkers explain why. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans She didn't mention Obama or the trend at all. She's talking on the scope of the U.S. history. wumbolo ^^^ 11:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

She's attributing the improvements to Trump. Per the source: "Owens also went on to say that Trump has already made things better for people of color, referencing the low unemployment rate for black Americans. But fact-checkers have repeatedly noted the black unemployment rate began to fall drastically under former President Barack Obama, saying the low rate under Trump is largely a continuation of that trend." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

If Trump continued the drastic trend of declining unemployment (per the source), how is Obama more responsible than Trump for the decline in 2016–2018? wumbolo ^^^ 19:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Because he handed over a robust economy? Kind of like, in an opposite way, Bush handed over an economy that was falling apart to Obama, so during the first year of Obama's presidency unemployment kept going up? Anyway, all that is WP:OR. Sources say what they say.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

It's pretty bad economics, but it's also pretty standard political rhetoric that everybody in politics does to take credit or blame others for the current state of the economy. To "fact check" this is a bit pedantic. Marquis de Faux (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The third paragraph of this article is misleading.

It fails to mention her response to the clip. HE IS ASSUMING THAT BLACK PEOPLE WILL NOT PURSUE THE FULL TWO HOUR CLIP PURPOSELY EXTRACTED AND DID NOT HEAR THE QUESTION THAT HE IS TRYING TO PRESENT A DEFINED SHOW ONE - - A DEFENSE OF LAUNCH OF HITLER BUT THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT I BELIEVED IN NATIONALISM AND THAT NATIONALISM IS BAD THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD BE CHARACTERIZED HITLER AS A NATIONALIST HE WAS A HOMICIDAL PSYCHOPATHIC MANIAC THAT KILLED HIS OWN PEOPLE IN NATIONALIST WOULD NOT KILL THEIR OWN PEOPLE THAT IS WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO HE PURPOSELY WANTED TO GIVE YOU A CUT UP SIMILAR WHAT THEY DO TO DONALD TRUMP THAT WAS UNBELIEVABLY DISHONEST AND HE DID NOT ALLOW ME TO RESPOND THAT IS WHERE PEOPLE ARE TO DRUM UP THE NARRATIVE" Candace Owens. In response to Rep. Lieu after playing the clip. Axelwink (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Ted Lieu

Hoping to develop the context of this entry. There is a subsection on Owen's comments about Hitler. I think it deserves more context. It appears Candace Owens was present when Rep. Ted Lieu played the tape. Why she was there and who invited her is context that seems worth including.

The paragraph reads, "Owens comments' about Hitler were played by Representative Ted Lieu during testimony in front of the House Judiciary Committee on the issue of increasing hate crimes and white supremacism in America, and brought them back into public attention. Lieu stated that he did not know Owens and was just going to let her own words characterize her, before playing the audio clip." 2600:1700:7A51:10B0:901D:1753:DE2F:D3B (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, Candace Owens stated in the same interview that a "Nationalist would not kill his own people" and I want to further some discussion on that topic. It does seem that Nationalists have killed their own people and I think that some cited reference material to rebuff that claim could be simple to procure. Anyone want to contribute to that? The Newsweek article states,

“He’s trying to present as if I was launching a defense of Hitler in Germany, when in fact the question that was asked of me was pertaining to whether or not I believed...in nationalism and that nationalism was bad,” Owens told the judiciary committee hearing. “What I responded...was I do not believe that we should be characterizing Hitler as a nationalist. He was a homicidal, psychopathic maniac that killed his own people. A nationalist would not kill their own people."

Remember, this is in regard to this quote, "I actually don't have any problems at all with the word "nationalism". I think that the definition gets poisoned by elitists that actually want globalism. Globalism is what I don't want. ... Whenever we say "nationalism", the first thing people think about, at least in America, is Hitler. You know, he was a national socialist, but if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, OK, fine. The problem is that he wanted—he had dreams outside of Germany. He wanted to globalize. He wanted everybody to be German, everybody to be speaking German. Everybody to look a different way. That's not, to me, that's not nationalism."

Her statements seem a bit confused. It seems apparent that Nationalist politicians have had their own people killed (Hitler/Holocaust) and that Candace Owens thinks that because of that they are disqualified as true nationalists. It's an absurd logic. Nationalists have tried to determine who is and isn't a person of a nation for a long time and in doing so have undermined the diversity of that nation. 2600:1700:7A51:10B0:901D:1753:DE2F:D3B (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a great plan Axelwink (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

It may be absurd logic, but it does not change the fact that her remarks were taken completely out of context.JoeDinWarwick (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

there is no context in which saying "if hitler just wanted to make germany great, ok fine" as the holocaust in fact occured cause hitler thaought the jews would diminish germany's germanness and would hinder germany from being as great as he thought it should be. Norschweden (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

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.”[17][18][19]

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."[20]

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".[21] 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..."[22][23]. 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:[24]. 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:[25] 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.[26]

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.[27] 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" [28] and "The issue has long been a controversial one." [29]. 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.[30] 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[31][32]. 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.[33]

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

[34] 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/enwiki/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.[35] 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. [36] 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. [37][38] 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)

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)