Talk:Candace Owens/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Why is her history of spreading conspiracy theories below the fold?
She is more well known for her trafficking in disinformation than any of the fluff above her picture. There’s no reason to change the fluff but the bad stuff she’s known for as well should be front and center. 2603:7000:3300:D66:A5D6:FB71:880B:9540 (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- I have reverted this. What do others think? --Malerooster (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- I've edited this back to what is still completely mild language and structure characterizing her while still be accurate to what she is known for primarily. She is a conspiracy theorist first and foremost- beyond any of her other qualities. We must represent her presence as such. Jtmp96 (talk) 14:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- It's actually incredible her conspiracy promotion was below the fold in the first place, and even more so that someone went in and changed it back for nothing more than a power-trip. Jtmp96 (talk) 14:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- Not really. --Malerooster (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Malerooster, why did you remove the paragraph about conspiracy theories? –dlthewave ☎ 23:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Dlthewave, its covered in the body isn't it? I was removing it from the lead per BRD. --Malerooster (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- If he promotes conspiracy theories, she is a conspiracy theorist. Saying otherwise is a weird linguistic game.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
- @MagicatthemovieS, its not a game, its BLP concern. Is this what she is MOST known for? Maybe, maybe not. The conspiracy theorist seems to be the number 1 smear added to alot of BLPs over the last few years. Some are warranted, others not. It also has to due with how much weight and placement of this "material". --Malerooster (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- This was recently added. Per BRD, it was reverted and we are discussing it now. It could be undue weight for the current lead. Until/when there is consensus for a major change like this, it can be added, no rush. --Malerooster (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- MagicatthemovieS, this is covered by wp:BLPCAT. There are also a number of BLPN discussions on this topic. Basically since a category is presented without comment or description is should only be used in the most clear cut cases if the category has negative connotation as it does here. While Owens has been accused of spreading some conspiracies, she is not primarily known for that. That is odd are any random article about her isn't going to say that is what she is doing. For that reason the category is, in a sense, the last thing added and only added when it is clear that is what she is primarily known for. Springee (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Whoever this Springee is, they're clearly not open to viewpoints other than their own and it's antithetical to the idea of this website. As I posted above, both Springee and Malerooster are intentionally watering down the main concepts Candace Owens is synonymous with and they bring shame on themselves and this website by doing so. Jtmp96 (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- To understand how deeply rooted bias may be, and I mean it in the sense of trusting and choosing to believe in spite of evidence that points to the contrary, take the Ukraine conflict. There is near universal agreement that Ukraine is being invaded. Candace Owens may or may not have done the research, but the idea she seems to hold is that Putin represents an alignment with her values and Ukraine is a corrupt country anyway, with Zelensky part of the Davos conspiracy theory and pushing it on her audience, who in turn may or may not strongly agree with her assessment. It is a hard one to let go of. I am not one to judge her on that, but everyone at some point or another has definitive conflict in their moral compass, it is inevitable, especially with cosiness is about to be smacked with reality on the ground. This goes either way. Conservatives may tend to desire to portray her in what they perceive merely as her contributions and the things they personally value in her, while Progressives and potentially liberals may override the perceived contributions in favor of the things that run contrary to what they personally consider their truth. WP's proposal is to bring both sides, use the most generic terms in the lead, and simply go more into detail in the main body. Saussure4661 (talk) 11:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Whoever this Springee is, they're clearly not open to viewpoints other than their own and it's antithetical to the idea of this website. As I posted above, both Springee and Malerooster are intentionally watering down the main concepts Candace Owens is synonymous with and they bring shame on themselves and this website by doing so. Jtmp96 (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Not necessarily, she appears to be different things to different people, depends who you speak to. Anyone with opposing views may perceive her as a conspiracy theorist, which is fine, others without any political leanings at all may simply perceive her as a talkshow host, while others will tag her by her political affiliation, Right wing or Conservative. If the source is of any of these leanings, it will describe her as such and these make their way here. Everyone is absolutely entitled to their opinion, but not all opinions are established facts backed up by science or established academia. Stick to the facts, choose from a wide array of sources as she is controversial for certain peoples Saussure4661 (talk) 11:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Malerooster, why did you remove the paragraph about conspiracy theories? –dlthewave ☎ 23:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Not really. --Malerooster (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- It's actually incredible her conspiracy promotion was below the fold in the first place, and even more so that someone went in and changed it back for nothing more than a power-trip. Jtmp96 (talk) 14:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- I've edited this back to what is still completely mild language and structure characterizing her while still be accurate to what she is known for primarily. She is a conspiracy theorist first and foremost- beyond any of her other qualities. We must represent her presence as such. Jtmp96 (talk) 14:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
I can also bring this to the BLP board to get more input which would be helpful. --Malerooster (talk) 23:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Given the number of times we mention conspiracy theories in the article, it seems like the larger BLP concern would be the appearance of bias if this were omitted from the lead. You mentioned some general concerns that can apply to labeling people as conspiracy theorists; could you please explain why you think this is UNDUE for Owens specifically? –dlthewave ☎ 00:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Really? How many times is it mentioned? The moon landing where she is "having fun"? Do reliable sources say that this is a major point with her? Is she in the Alex Jones level? BLP says to use caution, I would add especially when "labeling" an idividual. The lead should summarize the body of the article. I made a suggestion below. --Malerooster (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that this content shouldn't be in the lead. As was said, this is something often used as a smear. It's an vaguely defined claim and often the foundation of such accusations are themselves covered in shades of gray. Per IMPARTIAL and the general caution that should be applied to BLP this should not be in the lead. Springee (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure exactly what the WP:IMPARTIAL concern would be. Are there reliable sources that disagree that A) these are conspiracies and B) she's promoted them? What are the "shades of grey" here? We're already acting cautiously by ensuring that the passage is supported by multiple reliable sources per NPOV. –dlthewave ☎ 02:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Malerooster & Springee you bring shame on yourselves and the integrity of Wikipedia. Jtmp96 (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- There is clear disagreement here, good practice would be to reign in a wide variety of sources with opposing views, summarise and describe both of them and leave it at that, that's what WP:BALANCE suggests anyway Saussure4661 (talk) 11:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Malerooster & Springee you bring shame on yourselves and the integrity of Wikipedia. Jtmp96 (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure exactly what the WP:IMPARTIAL concern would be. Are there reliable sources that disagree that A) these are conspiracies and B) she's promoted them? What are the "shades of grey" here? We're already acting cautiously by ensuring that the passage is supported by multiple reliable sources per NPOV. –dlthewave ☎ 02:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
"MOST known for" is a really weird red herring and not policy. This content is VERY properly sourced negative information about a public person, ergo we include include it per WP:Publicfigure. It's also so clearly sourced in the body and notable that it should be mentioned in the lead. The dominant view in ALL RS (and they are the ONLY ones that count here) is that she's a far-right conspiracy theorist. Period. She is far to the right of ordinary right-wing GOP politicians and party members. This has all the hallmarks of TE, whitewashing, and failure to understand NPOV and BLP. This is newbie stuff. A total fail. Sheesh! Stop wasting our time. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- It is sourced well enough to be in the body of the article. There is no reason it needs to be in the lead and it fails BLPCAT so that cat tag shouldn't be included. Springee (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- I agree about the BLPCAT issue, but otherwise see a refusal to mention in the lead as a non-neutral editorial POV violation of LEAD. I'm really tired of seeing the same people protecting and whitewashing the articles of right-wing extremists. (You don't see me defending left-wing extremists.) RS treat Candace as an extremist, so our content should reflect what RS say. If you don't see her covered by the media in that way, you're not using RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Right now the material shouldn't be restored to the lead either. First, we don't have consensus. Second, if you look at the body of the article there isn't much to support the conspiracy theorist claim. We have to be very careful about what "RS" do with respect to Owens. Many of the RSs we are using in this article are lower quality (buzzfeed news, daily beast, Huff Po) that are happy to mix their subjective views with factual reporting. When we carry those subjective comments into this article we start having IMPARTIAL issues. Second, Ownes may say things that are problematic. The lead says that. The problem is when we promote two things to the lead as justification that she is generally known for promoting conspiracy theories. Sorry, we have only two. One is COVID related and is supported by the high quality Daily Beast. Even that poor source notes "the CDC has noted that myocarditis and pericarditis are potential side effects of the vaccines". The other topic is the claim that she believes the moon landing was a hoax. When you look at what she tweeted with respect to the moon landing, sorry, that looks like trolling rather than something she truly believes. The source we are citing is the Washington Examiner. Basically editors are selectively highlighting a small number of minor claims to push "conspiracy theorist" into the article lead. That doesn't have consensus and is a rather clear BLP violation even if we agree that she is a horrible person. Please don't confuse "defending right-wing extremist" with expecting Wikipedia to actually deliver IMPARTIAL articles on our subjects. Again, look at the Daily Caller discussion[1] where no one is claiming the sources is good but editors are still rightly concerned with how the material is presented. Springee (talk) 05:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Whoever this Springee is, they're clearly not open to viewpoints other than their own and it's antithetical to the idea of this website. As I posted above, both Springee and Malerooster are intentionally watering down the main concepts Candace Owens is synonymous with and they bring shame on themselves and this website by doing so. Jtmp96 (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Right now the material shouldn't be restored to the lead either. First, we don't have consensus. Second, if you look at the body of the article there isn't much to support the conspiracy theorist claim. We have to be very careful about what "RS" do with respect to Owens. Many of the RSs we are using in this article are lower quality (buzzfeed news, daily beast, Huff Po) that are happy to mix their subjective views with factual reporting. When we carry those subjective comments into this article we start having IMPARTIAL issues. Second, Ownes may say things that are problematic. The lead says that. The problem is when we promote two things to the lead as justification that she is generally known for promoting conspiracy theories. Sorry, we have only two. One is COVID related and is supported by the high quality Daily Beast. Even that poor source notes "the CDC has noted that myocarditis and pericarditis are potential side effects of the vaccines". The other topic is the claim that she believes the moon landing was a hoax. When you look at what she tweeted with respect to the moon landing, sorry, that looks like trolling rather than something she truly believes. The source we are citing is the Washington Examiner. Basically editors are selectively highlighting a small number of minor claims to push "conspiracy theorist" into the article lead. That doesn't have consensus and is a rather clear BLP violation even if we agree that she is a horrible person. Please don't confuse "defending right-wing extremist" with expecting Wikipedia to actually deliver IMPARTIAL articles on our subjects. Again, look at the Daily Caller discussion[1] where no one is claiming the sources is good but editors are still rightly concerned with how the material is presented. Springee (talk) 05:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- I agree about the BLPCAT issue, but otherwise see a refusal to mention in the lead as a non-neutral editorial POV violation of LEAD. I'm really tired of seeing the same people protecting and whitewashing the articles of right-wing extremists. (You don't see me defending left-wing extremists.) RS treat Candace as an extremist, so our content should reflect what RS say. If you don't see her covered by the media in that way, you're not using RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
BRD and longstanding content
The edit summaries are off. This is longstanding content, and attempts to delete such content are normally dealt with in the normal BRD manner, which, in this case, means the BOLD deletion gets REVERTED and the deleter can then try to use DISCUSSION to create a consensus backing their desired deletion.
Consequently, I will restore the longstanding content, but make sure the category is left out. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Done -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- This is NOT long standing, go look at the history. This was BOLDLY added to the lead, so I will be removing it per BRD until there is consensus for its inclusion in the lead. --Malerooster (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- It looks like longstanding content to me. Regardless, BRD still applies to that content, so stick to discussion and don't edit war. That content has implicit consensus and needs a consensus to remove it. BTW, this fringe attempt to delete does not look good for you, so be careful about deleting mainstream RS content. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- It might look that way, but it isn't, what can I say? Do you want to take a stab at rewritting the lead? Also, can you provide a list of RS that describe the subject as a far right conspiracy theorist? They can be reviewed and added to the article if there is consensus. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- It was added on March 1, 2022 (9 months, 18 days ago). What's your definition of longstanding? -- Pemilligan (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- It might look that way, but it isn't, what can I say? Do you want to take a stab at rewritting the lead? Also, can you provide a list of RS that describe the subject as a far right conspiracy theorist? They can be reviewed and added to the article if there is consensus. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Regardless of how longstanding, the content seems entirely WP:DUE to me. Generalrelative (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Due in the body but in the lead? How much of the body focuses on conspiracy theories? Not much. So why would that be in the lead? Springee (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'd say it's definitely lead-worthy; coverage treats it as a major aspect of her notability. If you feel there's not enough in the body then you should expand that aspect of the body rather than remove it from the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- If so then why is so little of her BLP actually talking about the topic? Do you have some sort of data/examples to back your claim? I assume you know that the LEADFOLLOWSBODY. That means we look at the body and summarize it for the lead. The body doesn't put much emphasis on conspiracy claims. Perhaps it would be better just to say she is often outspoken and her comments are frequently controversial including those related to COVID and COVID responses. That at least makes it clear that there are a broad range of comments that have resulted in criticism. Your suggestion that we alter the article body to fit the lead confuses how things supposed to be done. We don't, or at least aren't supposed to, fill in the body because someone wants keep specific negative content in the lead. Springee (talk) 04:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Whoever this Springee is, they're clearly not open to viewpoints other than their own and it's antithetical to the idea of this website. As I posted above, both Springee and Malerooster are intentionally watering down the main concepts Candace Owens is synonymous with and they bring shame on themselves and this website by doing so. Jtmp96 (talk) 15:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- regardless of politics or personal views, the non negotiable rule to follow is that of neutrality. The purpose is to not lean in any one direction, as this is an encyclopedia, not a personal blog. Some adjectives are even a little redundant, like "falsely". WP does not collect truth, only facts, therefore, always let facts speak for themselves, this will allow the reader to decide for themselves how they want to feel about about a subject matter. Consider "nauseating", or other value judgement adjectives. Saussure4661 (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- We must maintain WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC WP:TONE, that means NPOV and reporting facts. But there are Manual of Styles that dictate how pages should look and yes WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. WP:WEIGHT has to be properly distributed. Also BLP protections are there for a reason. As long as nothing breaches those protections specifically WP:REDFLAG, then there shouldn't be any issues. Eruditess (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- regardless of politics or personal views, the non negotiable rule to follow is that of neutrality. The purpose is to not lean in any one direction, as this is an encyclopedia, not a personal blog. Some adjectives are even a little redundant, like "falsely". WP does not collect truth, only facts, therefore, always let facts speak for themselves, this will allow the reader to decide for themselves how they want to feel about about a subject matter. Consider "nauseating", or other value judgement adjectives. Saussure4661 (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Whoever this Springee is, they're clearly not open to viewpoints other than their own and it's antithetical to the idea of this website. As I posted above, both Springee and Malerooster are intentionally watering down the main concepts Candace Owens is synonymous with and they bring shame on themselves and this website by doing so. Jtmp96 (talk) 15:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- If so then why is so little of her BLP actually talking about the topic? Do you have some sort of data/examples to back your claim? I assume you know that the LEADFOLLOWSBODY. That means we look at the body and summarize it for the lead. The body doesn't put much emphasis on conspiracy claims. Perhaps it would be better just to say she is often outspoken and her comments are frequently controversial including those related to COVID and COVID responses. That at least makes it clear that there are a broad range of comments that have resulted in criticism. Your suggestion that we alter the article body to fit the lead confuses how things supposed to be done. We don't, or at least aren't supposed to, fill in the body because someone wants keep specific negative content in the lead. Springee (talk) 04:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'd say it's definitely lead-worthy; coverage treats it as a major aspect of her notability. If you feel there's not enough in the body then you should expand that aspect of the body rather than remove it from the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Due in the body but in the lead? How much of the body focuses on conspiracy theories? Not much. So why would that be in the lead? Springee (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- It looks like longstanding content to me. Regardless, BRD still applies to that content, so stick to discussion and don't edit war. That content has implicit consensus and needs a consensus to remove it. BTW, this fringe attempt to delete does not look good for you, so be careful about deleting mainstream RS content. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- This is NOT long standing, go look at the history. This was BOLDLY added to the lead, so I will be removing it per BRD until there is consensus for its inclusion in the lead. --Malerooster (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
LGBT
So we completely ignore that she's best friends with an openly gay man Dave Rubin and she has stated she has 4 gay cousins. We just want to paint her as anti LGBT? Doesn't she support same sex marriage anymore and why was it removed from this section. Very bias and I'm speaking as someone who isn't particularly fond of her but facts are facts. Nlivataye (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- So I just reviewed the whole article and I didn't see any sentence that flat out calls her anti-LGBT. She has a sub-section named "LGBT" rights under the section "Political views", which after taking a closer look at, has several issues with its sourcing. I will make another talk page post under this one addressing the issues. Eruditess (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
The Honorable
Reading from The Honourable article we find "In the United Kingdom, all sons and daughters of viscounts and barons (including the holders of life peerages) and the younger sons of earls are styled with this prefix." As the child of a Lord, this means George Farmer is styled this way. And given a wife shares the title of her husband this means Candace Owens is in fact The Honorable Candace Owens. So do stop deleting this correct form of address. Llevenius (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- Does this comply with MOS [2]? Also, is there a reference for this that describes her title? If not it should probably be left off. Springee (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- Owens is styled The Honarable here, here, and here. She can also be found using the style herself here. Llevenius (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- In those sources the title appears to apply when used to the couple rather than as an individual. I think it's an interesting fact and could be included in the part about her marriage. I'm not sure it should be applied as you are trying but I will let others weigh in. Springee (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- This matter should not really be an issue of any sort. She (Candace) is the wife of the son of a baron in the UK. She is automatically styled with the honorific Honorable. Her marriage to George Farmer (which is very well reported to have actually indeed occurred on 31 August 2019) is the proof that she is entitled to this honorific. The fact that she is entitled to this honorific is not (or should not be) debatable. The only real question is where in a biographical article should her designated honorific be used. It is this latter question that is a matter for the WP:MOS. Regardless of anything else, WP person info-boxes have provision for specifying the honorific of its subject. At the very least, one would expect that her honorific be specified within the info-box. If someone thinks that the honorific should not be specified inside the info-box, then that discussion should be taken up by the experts of that particular info-box (the person info-box in the present case) and otherwise would be a separate question than anything to do with Candace. If the info-box developers (experts) made provision for an honorific (which they have done up until the present time), then that should be honored and used until the info-box itself removes that provision. If someone feels that provision for an honorific within the person info-box should be removed, you should take your case to the talk page of the info-box in question; namely, Template talk:Infobox person --L.Smithfield (talk) 01:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- The Honorable, as used in the context of Brittish nobility, can be found in the infoboxes of, to name a few examples; John Byron, Robert Boyle, Anthony Berry, Nigella Lawson, and Gwyneth Dunwoody. So I find no reason why the same would not apply to Owens. Maybe it would be appropriate to add a sentence in Personal life to clarify that she is entitled to the style following her marriage. Llevenius (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- "The Honourable" is used for a large amount of reasons, not just nobility (many of those you've mentioned above are not nobility). However it would only apply to Owens in the sense that she is the wife of a son of a baron, and therefore she would be styled The Hon. Mrs. George Farmer not The Hon. Candace Owens (or Candace Farmer). Black Kite (talk) 10:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- That was what I was thinking/wondering about. I don't see an issue mentioning that in the article as the provided Yahoo news source does support that, as a couple, they have that title. It doesn't in my reading support that the title would independently apply to her. Springee (talk) 12:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I took the section out but would have no objection to it being put back with a more accurate reading of what her title actually is. Obviously, as a couple, The Hon. George and Candace Farmer is correct as well. I think the Yahoo source just puts it clumsily. Black Kite (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- I have never in my life before heard of a couple title. Owens is to be styled The Honorable, irregardless of what follows be it Candace Owens or Mrs Geroge Farmer. Llevenius (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- I didn't say it was a couple title, I was pointing out how the "Honourable" should be written when it refers to the couple (i.e. not The Hon. George and Hon. Candace Farmer). And Owens is always The Hon. Mrs. George Farmer if you're going to use the honorific, not her own name (as her honorific only stems from her marriage). Black Kite (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- I know I'm correct, but I'll stop arguing because I can't be bothered anymore. Llevenius (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- I think it is an interesting fact, I wouldnt mind a small section mentioning it as more trivia. However, if we can't verify that this is correct with WP:RS I think it lacks notability and would unfortunately fall under WP:OR. MaximusEditor (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- I know I'm correct, but I'll stop arguing because I can't be bothered anymore. Llevenius (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- I didn't say it was a couple title, I was pointing out how the "Honourable" should be written when it refers to the couple (i.e. not The Hon. George and Hon. Candace Farmer). And Owens is always The Hon. Mrs. George Farmer if you're going to use the honorific, not her own name (as her honorific only stems from her marriage). Black Kite (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- I have never in my life before heard of a couple title. Owens is to be styled The Honorable, irregardless of what follows be it Candace Owens or Mrs Geroge Farmer. Llevenius (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I took the section out but would have no objection to it being put back with a more accurate reading of what her title actually is. Obviously, as a couple, The Hon. George and Candace Farmer is correct as well. I think the Yahoo source just puts it clumsily. Black Kite (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- That was what I was thinking/wondering about. I don't see an issue mentioning that in the article as the provided Yahoo news source does support that, as a couple, they have that title. It doesn't in my reading support that the title would independently apply to her. Springee (talk) 12:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- "The Honourable" is used for a large amount of reasons, not just nobility (many of those you've mentioned above are not nobility). However it would only apply to Owens in the sense that she is the wife of a son of a baron, and therefore she would be styled The Hon. Mrs. George Farmer not The Hon. Candace Owens (or Candace Farmer). Black Kite (talk) 10:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- The Honorable, as used in the context of Brittish nobility, can be found in the infoboxes of, to name a few examples; John Byron, Robert Boyle, Anthony Berry, Nigella Lawson, and Gwyneth Dunwoody. So I find no reason why the same would not apply to Owens. Maybe it would be appropriate to add a sentence in Personal life to clarify that she is entitled to the style following her marriage. Llevenius (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- This matter should not really be an issue of any sort. She (Candace) is the wife of the son of a baron in the UK. She is automatically styled with the honorific Honorable. Her marriage to George Farmer (which is very well reported to have actually indeed occurred on 31 August 2019) is the proof that she is entitled to this honorific. The fact that she is entitled to this honorific is not (or should not be) debatable. The only real question is where in a biographical article should her designated honorific be used. It is this latter question that is a matter for the WP:MOS. Regardless of anything else, WP person info-boxes have provision for specifying the honorific of its subject. At the very least, one would expect that her honorific be specified within the info-box. If someone thinks that the honorific should not be specified inside the info-box, then that discussion should be taken up by the experts of that particular info-box (the person info-box in the present case) and otherwise would be a separate question than anything to do with Candace. If the info-box developers (experts) made provision for an honorific (which they have done up until the present time), then that should be honored and used until the info-box itself removes that provision. If someone feels that provision for an honorific within the person info-box should be removed, you should take your case to the talk page of the info-box in question; namely, Template talk:Infobox person --L.Smithfield (talk) 01:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- In those sources the title appears to apply when used to the couple rather than as an individual. I think it's an interesting fact and could be included in the part about her marriage. I'm not sure it should be applied as you are trying but I will let others weigh in. Springee (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- Owens is styled The Honarable here, here, and here. She can also be found using the style herself here. Llevenius (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Education in infobox
This parameter shouldn't be used for non-graduates, per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_person/doc "It is usually not relevant to include either parameter for non-graduates, but article talk page consensus may conclude otherwise"
Unless there has been a consensus somewhere that i haven't seen --FMSky (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
- In this case I would say that it's very relevant to her career as a journalist, especially since it's discussed further along in the article. I'd like to hear what others have to say. –dlthewave ☎ 18:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
- I would leave it out. My general feeling is this is a line for information about secondary degrees. As an example, [Dave_Thomas_(businessman)] is notable for not having graduated high school yet was a big proponent of education later in life. His bio box doesn't have an education line. Springee (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
- Leave it out it's not important. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 23:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
- Impertinent. Actually the article as a whole has potential but is a conglomerate of negativity. I'd wager several other articles in the political sphere written and slanted like this would have been rewritten many a moon ago--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Unclear sentence in the lede of the article
The unclear sentence is as follows: "During the 2023 Israel-Hamas War, she criticized the Church of Saint Porphyrius airstrike and accused the nation of "genocide" against the Palestinian people." The unclear part is "accused the nation" without giving any clue which nation the author of the sentence meant. There is no clear indication before or after. I don't want to correct the sentence not knowing what the author meant. 24.225.161.193 (talk) 03:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
LGBT Rights sub-section sourcing is problematic.
So after responding to @Nlivataye's talk page post above. I reviewed the article for any potential WP:UNDUE material. After taking a look at the sub-section " LGBT Rights" (Under section "Political Views"), the sub-section contains a few WP:MREL and WP:GUNREL sourcing citations. We have Mic.com which isn't on the WP:RSP, but it was singularly sourced in the first sentence about banning transitioning individuals from joining the military. The next sentence about Disney is sourced by Forbes Contributor which is classified as generally unreliable on RSP, as well as a marginally reliable HuffPo Political piece. (Which if we remove the gunrel Forbes piece will be a single sourced mrel piece). We also have a sentence singularly cited with a gunrel YouTube url. I have no issue with leaving the WP:GREL cited material. But the other content only cited by gunrel and mrel need to be removed. Eruditess (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- Totally agree. Inconsistent sourcing makes all sourcing seem unreliable Superpig05 (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- I've fixed those cites by adding others. Owens' own Twitter comment about Disney is still there for everyone to see. I'm not too bothered about the military issue, that could probably be removed as it's not that important - Owens has attacked far more LGBT targets. Black Kite (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- yeah there was a source that claimed she supported same sex marriage but I couldn't find anything of her stating that. What she claims indicates otherwise 2600:8801:FB13:6B00:A871:9DED:7D14:72EA (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- I've fixed those cites by adding others. Owens' own Twitter comment about Disney is still there for everyone to see. I'm not too bothered about the military issue, that could probably be removed as it's not that important - Owens has attacked far more LGBT targets. Black Kite (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Endorsement of Ramaswamy?
Text stating that Owens endorsed Vivek Ramaswamy for President has been correctly removed more than once for citing deprecated sources per WP:RSP. I've found two sources not listed as deprecated that contradict each other on this. Given the contradictions, I think this can be left out of the article, but I thought the sources might be worth sharing here.
- Mr. Ramaswamy also has played up his connections to two prominent personalities in the online conservative press-sphere, a Daily Wire host, Candace Owens, and a podcaster, Tim Pool, touting Ms. Owens’s endorsement in a video released by his campaign.
- — Payne, Russell (January 11, 2024). "With Only Days To Spare, Ramaswamy Raises His Profile in Iowa With Fresh Endorsements and Viral Videos Cheered by the Online Right". The New York Sun. Archived from the original on January 11, 2024. Retrieved February 3, 2024.
- Asked if her appearance with Ramaswamy amounted to an endorsement, Owens did not directly answer. She said while she had "never endorsed a candidate in the past," she came to Iowa because she believed her appearance "would invite more media” and that "people would come out and listen to what he had to say."
- — Barton, Tom (January 14, 2024). "Haley, Ramaswamy make Eastern Iowa stops in caucus closing sprint". The Gazette. Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Retrieved February 3, 2024.
— Pemilligan (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- yeah, this sort of "did they or didn't they" is why WP:ENDORSE is clear: it has to be an RS or a verifiably the person primary source and they really have to say "endorse" or a close synonym, and Owens appears to be specifically avoiding the word "endorse" or something amounting to it - David Gerard (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Owen's Crusade against Macron's wife
Given that it has raised a lot of heat and been widely reported, maybe her latest determination to "out" Macron's wife as transsexual would deserve mention in the "Controversies" section?
Collection of news links: [https://www.google.com/search?q=Candace+Owens+slammed+for+pushing+debunked+conspiracy+theory+that+French+first+lady+Brigitte+Macron+is+biological+man&rlz=1C1BYYL_svSE944SE944&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#ip=1%5Dhttps://www.google.com/search?