Talk:Candace Owens/Archive 1

Talks, articles, interviews, and other research references
Is there any way within Wikipedia guidelines to include links to her articles, talks, and interviews? For example:
 * Could someone please edit this person's profile to reflect she was mentioned as the greatest influence by the terrorist of Christchurch Mosque manifesto, 2019--thank you ****
 * Articles that she wrote for the Stamford Advocate.
 * Her TEDx talk, and talks that she gave at a Rotary luncheon, and at a library.
 * Her interviews on the Ralph Retort, and on various YouTube channels as Red Pill Black.

This Wikipedia article sounds like it was written by a biased liberal. There are all kinds of subtle hate comments directed at her in the narrative and not giving instances of credit for her positive accomplishments. Is Wikipedia a liberal tool? The whole article needs to be re-written by a non-biased honest person.

She also helped organize a 21st Century Dads event.

According the announcement for the Rotary luncheon, in April 2017, she was working as an investor relations analyst for an investment manager in Manhattan. JimHabegger (talk) 05:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

What's the problem with the text on her anti-Trump past?
Wikipedia is nothing more than propaganda for the far left. This is a narrow-minded assessment of Ms. Owens accomplishments and takes what she says out of context. So sad...I won't be donating to this organization. that An editor mass-removed text (and other changes) without substantive reason. The author is not discredited, and Buzzfeed News is RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I even left a comment on your talk page to be polite and you don't even have the courtesy to respond before reverting. Anyhow, there is a single article on the subject by a journalist who Vox indicates did poor research before writing an article (I assume you think Vox is reliable) and the article by Buzzfeed which even states "Owens did not immediately respond to requests for comment via email and Twitter, though she did stress in tweets earlier today that the writers for the site, called Degree180, were young. She also described the reporter as a "despicable creature." (She also accused BuzzFeed News, falsely, of "threatening" the former writers for the site.) Though Degree180 is now defunct, the Internet Archive has preserved much of its content — a mix of Thought Catalog–style personal essays, bloggy political musings, woke admonishments, and relationship advice. Many of the writers for Degree180, which Owens registered in 2015, were college students." and the Hill (whose source is Buzzfeed) states that "The news outlet noted that much of her own writing on the defunct website was personal and didn’t focus on politics". So you think your edit accurately captures the context? If she said it it would be one thing, but if someone else said it, it is not as relevant.Patapsco913 (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, and your comment was nonsense. The simple fact is that you mass-removed content, most of which was verified to you in the edit summary (e.g. https://archive.is/HeRaq and https://archive.is/7Z7Qc), under the false pretense that the RS can't be trusted and that the content might be inaccurate. That's indefensible. And what exactly is the purpose of that extended quote from the Buzzfeed piece? If you want to add more stuff from the Buzzfeed piece or the Hill, go ahead and do that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * as far as the author of your article https://www.vox.com/2016/4/4/11355876/milo-yiannopoulos "Another good example is a piece BuzzFeed's Joseph Bernstein last year, alleging that Yiannopoulos was a "group effort": that he barely wrote any of his own material, and that a cadre of 44 interns were responsible for his stuff. It's an incredible charge — but it could very well have been prank on BuzzFeed. Yiannopoulos has publicly beefed with Bernstein before; it's entirely possible that he or his allies fed Bernstein false information that's designed to make him look stupid."Patapsco913 (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There's nothing there about Bernstein doing poor research or that his reporting is unreliability. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you know the difference between editor-in-chief and CEO? http://degree180.com/projects/#sthash.Wv7zWp77.dpbsPatapsco913 (talk) 00:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Look a) this is a BLP so to insinuate that she was anti-Trump because an online site she where she is CEO has anti-Trump articles does not mean she is anti-Trump. She did not write the artilce.Patapsco913 (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The text did not say that she was anti-Trump or that she authored the articles. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What on Earth does that have to do with anything? The article does not identify her as editor-in-chief. It identifies her as the founder of the site, and as an author on the site. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The founder of a website is not responsible for all the content of the website. The author of the article is. The reliability of the facts is by extension, the responsibility of the editor. Owens is not the editor, she is the CEO of the website; and your sources even state that is was not a political website but merely musings about various things. Vox even says that the Buzzfeed author of the article jumped the gun on reporting facts that were most likely false. Find a better source.Patapsco913 (talk) 01:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The Vox piece did not say that. Your reading comprehension is atrocious to say the least. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * According to the RS, the website frequently posted anti-conservative and anti-Trump content. Owens authored anti-conservative content herself, as was verified to you. Content that mocked Trump's penis size appeared on the site, as was verified to you. You claim that Buzzfeed (a RS - which was cited by another RS which demonstrates its RS status) can't be trusted to get its facts right, yet I've given you hard proof that Buzzfeed did undeniably get its facts right, and yet this discussion still goes on... ??? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * She was the CEO of the website, she was not the editor. Is the CEO of the website responsible for all the content? Your sources even indicate that the website was not political and most of the articles were written bu college women. Find some other source; this is a BLP.Patapsco913 (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The article you cite was not written by Owens. What are you taking about? Is Ezra Klein responsible for all the opinions on Vox (website)? So should I add on Exra Klein's webpage that he is the editor for a news source that is anti-Trump because I find a bunch of opinion pieces on Vox that are anti-Trump and some article that says so?Patapsco913 (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a blatant lie. The article that I said she authored above says "BY CANDACE OWENS". As for your ramblings about Ezra Klein: absolutely yes. If a RS says that Klein oversees a website that frequently posts anti-Trump content, it would perfectly fine to add that tidbit to his Wikipedia page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * here is what Owens said per your source: "PEOPLE WILL INSTANTLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE PRESIDENT’S PENIS SHOULD NEVER BE A TOPIC OF DISCUSSION. LIKE, EVER. Or any other political office-holder for that matter. Frankly, me and my millennial peers did not exactly understand why it was such a big deal that Bill Clinton got a blow job in his office. I don’t care who my doctor, banker, grocery-bagger, or any other person that I may come across in my daily life is having sex with– AS LONG AS THEY DO THEIR FUCKING JOBS. All of that talk about “but his morals” gets you nothing but a mandatory STFU from me. Unless you are Hilary Clinton, it was not and will never be your business, and if a person I worked for ever asked me about my sex life, I’d probably LIE to them too. When he does something ILLEGAL (See definition: contrary to, or forbidden by law), then please, give us a call. In the meantime– let’s talk about REAL issues. Ones that affect the world, not one man’s marriage. I can think of about a thousand we can choose from. Patapsco913 01:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * None of the text says that she was responsible for the content. The text very clearly says that (i) she founded the site, (ii) the site frequently featured anti-Trump and anti-conservative content, and (iii) she authored anti-conservative content. There are two sources: Buzzfeed News and The Hill, both of whom are RS and which demonstrate due weight for this minor internet celebrity. You started your edit-warring by implying that Buzzfeed News couldn't be trusted to get its facts right (seemingly because you were unable to comprehend a Vox article about the reporter of the Buzzfeed article) - I went on to prove to you that Buzzfeed undeniably got its facts right. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The article about Trump's penis was not written by Owens (please provide a link that it was); nor was she the editor of the website; this is a BLP 101. The Hill article refers to the Buzzfeed article so there is only one source.Ad hominen attacks are not appreciated and talking on the talk page is not edit warring. I politely posted on your talk page and you did not respond but rather reverted my revert.Patapsco913 (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I never said she wrote the article about Trump's penis. Please read carefully. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So why is it on her wikipage and not the authors? e.g. I am the owner of a newspaper...one of the newspaper's commentators says he hates the president...therefore I own a newspaper that has some commentators that hate the president. It does not make sense.Patapsco913 (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Because it's on her site, and two RS find that notable. I don't know about you, but it's notable that a diehard Trump supporter owned an anti-Trump website two years ago. Even if she wasn't a diehard Trump supporter, it's encyclopedic to describe what kind of website she owned. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Your source says it was not a political and mostly talked about other things. One commentator spoke disparagingly about Trump but she was not the editor at the time but the CEO (did she even see the post?). You are seemingly connecting a lot of dots like the author of the Buzzfeed article. The CEO is not responsible for the content of a website. So someone writes and article and then the CEO of the company that posts the article is responsible for the opinion of the author? In addition, your source even indicates that the website is not a political website. The Hill states "The news outlet noted that much of her own writing on the defunct website was personal and didn’t focus on politics."Patapsco913 (talk) 02:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

"You started your edit-warring" The preceding is false. Snooganssnoogans added the content. Patapsco913 reverted. Per WP:BRD that means Snooganssnoogans must goto talk. Snooganssnoogans is the edit warrior. Regarding Buzzfeed, this falls under WP:BLP and you need a better source. And the Hill--which based its article on Buzzfeed--doesn't count. As Patapsco913 told you. – Lionel(talk) 09:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Snooganssnoogans You are restoring the disputed text, adding new text, and re-arranging it so as to make it difficult to decipher. Why don't you bring up the text step-by-step on the talk page instead of shot-gunning it out there.Patapsco913 (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to submit myself to running every single line of text by you. Identify a sentence that you have a problem with and explain what the problem with it is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Buzzfeed and the Hill are RS. Furthermore, the content of the two RS have been proven beyond doubt. There's zero reason left to exclude this content. I have followed WP:BRD, the other editor has not. The other editor has at no point suggested tweaks to the text, identified specific portions that are wrong, and has shifted the goalposts throughout the discussion (arguing that Buzzfeed News could not be trusted to get its facts right - even though it has been conclusively proven that Buzzfeed did get its facts right). Instead, the editor just mass-removes text. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The article you cite was not written by her. This article is about her and not the author of the article. You need to show that she had something to do with the content of the article. She was not even the editor of the website but its CEO. Anyhow, you do not have consensus (see Lionel's post above) and when there is a dispute, you are supposed to go line-by-line.Patapsco913 (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have repeatedly linked you the anti-conservative article that she authored. Seriously, how many times am I going to have to do it before it sticks? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no problem keeping that article in. But it is not anti-conservative but anti-tea party, nay?Patapsco913 (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have no problem keeping that in the article, why have you repeatedly removed it? This is crux of the edit-warring and BRD-violations that have been occurring: you mass-removing content that's 100% accurate. Content that is perfectly in line with Wikipedia policy. And no, we go by the description of reliable sources. The last thing I want on Wikipedia is you adding your WP:OR descriptions to articles. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I never removed the "bat-shit crazy" comment since it is attributed to her.Patapsco913 (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You repeatedly removed "Owens said in one of her postings that it was “good news” that the “Republican Tea Party ... will eventually die off (peacefully in their sleep, we hope)." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Come on. That was not of controversy and I even added it back in where it belonged (see my last edit); and the reason is because of your editing style where you impolitely revert, re-order, and add new content.Patapsco913 (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC) Look what you just did: you have two editors against your edition. You disregard our opinion and then bombard the article with more info. That is not how the process works.Patapsco913 (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The gall of calling me impolite after you just admitted to baselessly and repeatedly mass-reverting text that you yourself no admit there was zero problem with (note that I repeatedly pointed this out to you and yet you still mass-reverted the perfectly fine text). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Please tell me how this is a mass revert https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Candace_Owens&type=revision&diff=841622794&oldid=841470100 Patapsco913 (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's the definition of a mass revert. You reverted every single change I made to the article, including text that you now concede was perfectly fine. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You are misrepresenting everything I said.Patapsco913 (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Buzz reliable? Not to many belive that http://theracquet.org/1886/viewpoint/is-buzzfeed-really-reliable/ .--104.249.231.145 (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Intellectual Dark Web
You are invited to participate in this AfD discussion about whether to delete Intellectual Dark Web. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

We should removed text sourced to primary sources
There's a lot of text in the 'political views' section which is sourced to a single tweet by Owens. We use secondary RS to demonstrate weight and to give the views expressed by her the appropriate context. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Tweets are basically quotes. If the statement is clear and they are used to support the person's beliefs, then they can be used.Patapsco913 (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * How do we determine which tweets to include? Do we report the tweets in full? Let's look at one example: One sentence reads: "She supports voter ID laws". It's sourced to the following tweet: "Voter identification is a MUST. Democrats are running rings of illegal voters. One reason, among many, that they love illegal immigration so much." Shouldn't the sentence in this instance read: "Owens supports voter ID laws, describing them as a "MUST" because of a conspiracy theory that "Democrats are running rings of illegal voters"." See, this is the problem that we get into with primary sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It is the same as quoting someone. Primary sources are used all the time for what someone believes; where the problem lies is if someone tries to interpret what they are saying. That is why we keep it simple and support it with their quote. I think the title of the article should be the tweet. It would OR to add the conspiracy theory line. It would be like quoting someone who said purple people are smarter then green people and then adding all sorts of research that it is false. It is what it is. In this case, I would leave the entire tweet and let the reader see it for themselves. Why is it a problem including "Democrats are running rings of illegal voters"? It is what she believes. Now if we have an article specifically contesting her statement, then lets add it.Patapsco913 (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:FRINGE, we should identify false conspiracy theories as such. But this is all besides the main point, which is that on Wikipedia we aren't supposed to just add anything from any source. We add significant and notable things, things which have been reported on by reliable secondary sources per WP:DUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * so its notable that some college kid wrote a satirical article about Trump's penis while she was CEO of a website (and not the editor) that she founded fresh out of school but her opinion on voter ID laws is not?Patapsco913 (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * One received secondary RS coverage, the other did not. Though I'm sure she'll rise to greater prominence and RS will sooner or later report on more of her fringe beliefs. When RS do, we add those fringe views to this article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well lets adjust the quote to say "Voter identification is a MUST...." see articlePatapsco913 (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think we should do that at all. Her uninformed and ludicrous views on voter ID shouldn't be in the article at all, because they haven't been reported by RS. If those views should be in the article (which they shouldn't), then her views on the topic should be presented in full. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I disagree. Perhaps we should go ask for a third opinion.Patapsco913 (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We should. The Neutral point of view/Noticeboard seems the appropriate place for WP:DUE concerns. Do you want to ask them? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * OK I will post a generic message there referring back to the talk page here.Patapsco913 (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Done - we will see if anyone bites.Patapsco913 (talk) 22:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm biting. Follow the secondary sources. If there is a reference to a specific tweet in a secondary source, it may be illustrative to quote that tweet in the article. But doing anything else is inescapably non-neutral, as you would be using editorial discretion to decide which of Owens's innumerable and self-contradicting viewpoints to present. It's not our job to craft a story - just to tell the one that appears in reliable sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Our policy WP:TWITTER unquestionably supports Patapsco913's position. – Lionel(talk) 11:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: When I add content that is supported by both reliable sources (Buzzfeed News, the Hill) and primary sources (Owens' own postings), you believed that the sourcing is insufficient and should be deleted from the article. When Patapsco (edit: someone else) adds content based solely on primary sources, you believe that Wikipedia policy "unquestionably supports" keeping the content? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not add any of the twitter content. Why don't you check first?Patapsco913 (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I must agree with Snooganssnoogans: "How do we determine which tweets to include?" We could write paragraphs and paragraphs just by scrolling through her Twitter and adding whatever feels relevant to us. "She used a meme to express her belief that Planned Parenthood is committing mass murder with abortion." "She once had an argument about whether Indiana Jones or Han Solo is the better character." etc. etc. I think it would be better to determine which beliefs are noteworthy by only including those found in secondary sources. --ChiveFungi (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Alrighty. You have convinced me although i do think that we need to think about adding twitter statements to counter what it seems to mostly brief negative comments about her without any context or nuance.Patapsco913 (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Twitter is RS. This is policy. Please do not remove sourced content.

Youtube is RS. Please do not remove sourced content. – Lionel(talk) 11:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC) (ec) Owen's quoted rebuttals to any allegation--even if self-published (primary source)--must be included per WP:WELLKNOWN. This is policy. – Lionel(talk) 11:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you want to clarify why you opposed content that was BOTH supported by reliable sources and self-published sources, but are now staunchly in favor of adding a bunch of content that can only be sourced to self-published sources? Seems weird. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's very easy to understand. Allow me to explain... When you make a negative allegation, BLP requires multiple independent sources. That means more than 1. However, the actual person, i.e. the target of the allegation, is allowed to defend themself using self-published sources. It's all in WP:BLP. As I've pasted here for you to read.– Lionel(talk) 11:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * quoting her is the best way to determine her position on a topic especially a negative allegation. This is supported in policy as I have pasted the relevant excerpt. Which quotes to include? We determine that via discusson which leads to consensus.  – Lionel(talk) 11:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Snoogans is using your comment to claim that you support mass deletion in spite of WP:TWITTER. Is he mischaracterizing your position? – Lionel(talk) 11:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually. I agree that we need to be very cautious with twitter since one could cherry-pick a statement without any context; however, often Twitter is often the only response we can use for negative allegations especially since many of the sources that are conservative that might include a response are deemed unreliable (e.g Breitbart, Daily Wire...etc.). Once we have a position established by a secondary source, there should not be a problem adding her statement if it clarifies her position (which we would generally use a quote" That said, I would not have a problem with using twitter for boiler-plate conservative positions e.g. say abortion.Patapsco913 (talk) 11:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside your absurd and incorrect understanding of WP:BLP, can you please identify the content where Owens is rebutting allegations? The content that you're staunchly fighting for is just a cavalcade of random political positions. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree that we should remove this material. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Birth year citation
Thanks for providing a birth year citation! Primary sources are okay for certain uncontentious material - such as birth years. However as the citation is a 2.5 hour long video, it would be really helpful if we could also get the timestamp of when she says that she was born in 1989. Thanks. --ChiveFungi (talk) 03:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * She says she just turned 29 somewhere in the video. I'm not watching the dreadful interview again to find the timestamp.  I almost killed myself the first time through.  Bueller 007 (talk) 06:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ugh. I knew it was near the beginning so I did it. In an episode live streamed on May 31 2018, she says "I just turned 29." Bueller 007 (talk) 06:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thank you! I've added the timestamp to the citation so nobody else has to watch the whole thing (or even 2 minutes of it). --ChiveFungi (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We really need to get a full birthday. May 31st 1989 is the best guess at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.93.55.53 (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Should we remove the neutrality tag?
I don't see the NPOV problems. The content disputes from May seem settled. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC) You don't see the lack of a neutral point-of-view? I ran across this article searching for something else, read it, and the point-of-view stuck out like a sore thumb. that is why WP cannot be relied upon for anything but entertainment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.27.185 (talk) 06:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Quote : "I don't see the NPOV problems." Quite a comical assertion because this article on Candace Owens is very obviously ideologically SLANTED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sszorin (talk • contribs) 21:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Evidence-free doxxing claims
Per RS coverage, Owens' claims about being doxxed by progressives is an evidence-free assertion. One editor keeps trying to change this text into a "criticism" of Owens or to use "scant evidence". While one of the two RS uses the term "scant evidence", it is obvious in the context and with the other source that this is a synonym for "no evidence". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The "without evidence" line doesn't need to be in the article and violates NPOV saying one source counts while another doesn't is ludacrisPaul &#34;The Wall&#34; (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added the exact quote from both sources mentioned., you're on the border of 3RR; so don't revert again. It's better to have the quotes from the sources than synthesize and be accused of NPOV issues, as complained by the editor above. Lourdes  10:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * According to Jesse Singal, who looked into this in considerable depth, "There is no actual evidence any of this is true, and yet Owens, thrust into an internet culture war she knew nothing about coming in, has misinterpreted, in a particularly cringeworthy way, various bits of mundane “evidence” as implicating Quinn and Harper." This seems in keeping with the "no evidence" wording. - Bilby (talk) 10:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no synthesis involved. Both sources clearly say there is no evidence for the assertion ("scant evidence" can be a synonym for no evidence), and it's bizarre to attribute such things to "media reports" (in fact, in every talk page discussion I've been in, the consensus has always been to reject attributing RS content to "the media"). The complaints by the editor above are entirely spurious. The subject of this Wikipedia article is a polemic and conspiracy theorist, and the page has been vandalized on an almost daily basis for months. And I don't agree that we ought to concern ourselves over what the user above accuses anyone of. If anything, it's a badge of honor to be accused of NPOV by a vandal who whitewashes reliably sourced content and adds Breitbart.

Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That sounds a fair assessment. I've reinstated the "no evidence" change. Lourdes  11:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no need for name calling, there are articles, Breitbart or not that offer up evidence such as the one below. Instead of getting into a war about it we should just compromise and remove the line. Paul &#34;The Wall&#34; (talk) 12:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * How come the link was removed? How come any non-left slanted link is being removed? Paul &#34;The Wall&#34; (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , Breitbart was removed because it is not a reliable source and per discussion cannot be used anywhere for sourcing factual statements. See WP:BREITBART Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the Ralph Retort article which even if that site is blacklisted as well reading the article does show evidence of her being "attacked" by Zoe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul "The Wall" (talk • contribs) 13:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed the Ralph Retort link due to BLP concerns - the Ralph Retort has been linked to so many issues that we can't use it for any claims about a living person, even on a talk page. It isn't useful for this article. - Bilby (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Is this article acceptable? http://gamer2002.tumblr.com/post/143055351401/some-findings-regarding-social-autopsy-accusing Paul &#34;The Wall&#34; (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Some random person's Tumblr is not a reliable source. Have you read WP:RS? --ChiveFungi (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I did read, the only info on tumblr I see that it can be used if it's personal. I don't see a grid on whats allowed and not allowed. I don't see anything about why "Ralph Retort" would be banned. It seems like anything that isn't left slanted is blacklisted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul "The Wall" (talk • contribs) 15:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't be ignored that Snoogan has a bias against right leaning pundits and has many edit warring warnings because of them. Paul &#34;The Wall&#34; (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * See WP:RSSELF (emphasis mine): "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media."
 * "It seems like anything that isn't left slanted is blacklisted." There's a reason for that, but it's very off topic. Please keep your comments on the topic at hand. If they're about another editor or Wikipedia's policies in general then they shouldn't be on this talk page. Thank you. --ChiveFungi (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Where is Ralph Retort banned from using as a reference? Paul &#34;The Wall&#34; (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * For a start, Ralph Retort appears to be self-published, which is generally not acceptable per WP:RS. --ChiveFungi (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Doesn't that rule apply mainly to first party accounts and not 3rd party accounts? For examples if the only notable articles about Ralph Retort were from Ralph Retort it should be disallowed. But since this is a Ralph Retort article about Candace Owens it is acceptable.


 * See my issue is, is that there is evidence out there, I can point it out to you but since none of the MSM picked up on it and only Brietbart, RalphRetort, and *multiple* blog posts did, it doesn't count. Why not? The evidence is out there it just wasn't reported on because it wasn't a big story. I'm not even trying to explain the evidence in the article, just remove the 'without evidence' line. Which seems fair to let the article have a neutral POV.Paul &#34;The Wall&#34; (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe no mainstream sources reported on the story because the story is untrue. That's why we don't use non-RSes - because they publish untrue and misleading stories. --ChiveFungi (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You can see the evidence of there being evidence though. Multiple corroborating stories. It wasn't huge news thought because it's a twitter beef by two unknowns (at the time). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul "The Wall" (talk • contribs) 19:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources say there was no evidence, so Wikipedia says there was no evidence. It's really that simple.
 * It doesn't matter if you've read a Breitbart article and come to the conclusion that there is evidence that there was evidence because that's original research based on an unreliable source, which is not how Wikipedia works. --ChiveFungi (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Candace Owens page needs NPOV tag
The Current article is not being written from a neutral point of view. Can we add a tag until it is more neutral?Paul &#34;The Wall&#34; (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What part seems non-neutral? List the sentences here (but first, read our neutrality policy). Thanks, Lourdes  05:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The article is semi-protected, not full-protected, and so admin tools are not required here. Closing the help request. Yunshui 雲 水 08:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Ya know, she takes a pro-Trump stance and criticizes Black Lives Matter and the Democratic Party because she is paid by Turning Point USA to do so. If she didn't do those things, they would almost certainly fire her. So, we simply neutrally present her totally non-neutral point-of-view. For a hint about what she might say and do if she was no longer paid by a right-leaning organization, see Omarosa. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Omarosa comment aside she had right leaning view points before Turning Point hired her. Paul &#34;The Wall&#34; (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Characterizations of "far-right conspiracy theorists and Trump supporters" is NPOV
I suggest that any description of individuals as "far-right conspiracy theorists and Trump supporters" be replaced with their names linked to their Wikipedia entries.

As far as I can tell, "far right" refers to anyone with whom the left (who seem to believe themselves the center) disagrees, regardless of where they fall on the spectrum between rigid social hierarchies (far right) and classless societies (far left).

"Conspiracy theorist" implies arguments with specious logic and contortions of evidence, but the fundamental arguments of Owens, Cernovich, and Yiannopoulos have also been made (forcefully and repeatedly) by recognized scholars such as Friedrich Hayek (Nobel Prize in Economics) and Dr. Thomas Sowell (indeed, they correctly reference both, and many other well-recognized scholars, jurists, and scientists). In other words, the only "conspiracy" I can find is the agreement among these commentators that the left pursues Alinskyite (charitably) or Stalinist (realistically) strategies for discrediting opponents—and this section is one example.

Finally, it is not clear what purpose or value "Trump supporter" brings as an adjective, particularly in any context other than content specifically pertaining to Trump. It evokes the (mindless) animus against Trump by the same left that seems intent on calling opponents "far right conspiracy theorists" when they are neither far right nor conspiracy theorists. Atrobinson (talk) 11:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Cernovich and Yiannopoulos are indisputably far-right conspiracy theorists and described as such by the cited source in the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I was watching a video of Candace Owens and wanted to know more about her, I came to this page and I'm surprised to learn that there is no real good source cited that proves she is "far-right". I found what Atrobinson (talk) said to be very true, and it's very apparent on the Wikipedia page for Alex Jones as well. I think that should be changed. Arminius Hermann 07:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)--Arminius Hermann 07:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arminius Hermann (talk • contribs)

redundant material on past website with anti-trump content
Several paragraphs of material on the old anti-trump website is duplicated in both the Media and Conservative Activism and Support of Donald Trump subsections--obviously one should be deleted. Moreover, this subject's past viewpoint is given more support than her current viewpoints; the full first paragraph of the Media and Conservative Activism actually discusses anti-conservative activism. This seems to be clear undue weight. I don't know this subject, so perhaps the past is in fact more notable than the present, but that seems dubious from the article, which says that the past anti-Trump material dates to when she was much less of a celebrity. In general, the article is depressingly NPOV, there seems to be some relentless insinuation that the subject's politics are merely pretextual or inauthentic, and moreover a rush to contradict or ridicule the subject's viewpoints. This isn't a discussion of her viewpoints, it is a presentation of the subject and what makes her noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.81.126.65 (talk) 04:11, 30 October 2018‎


 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: I did the easy job of consolidating the redundant parts. As for the rest, we can only work with the sources we have. If you would like to propose a more concrete suggestion, you may find Template:Edit semi-protected useful, as it will attract attention from a wider range of interested editors. Using a "change A to B" format is helpful, and including a reliable source is also important. Grayfell (talk) 04:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2018
During the past weekend, Candace Owens launched the Blexit campaign. Could an editor pls add this info into the article? References can be found in the Blexit article. Thank you. 95.114.146.196 (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ This is Paul (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

De-merge Blexit?
Responding to a now closed AN/I section, I am starting a discussion section here on Blexit, which was merged into the Candace Owens article by with edit. At AN/I, it was suggested that the discussion was too brief before the merge was performed. I have insufficient knowledge to form an opinion myself, but I agree that there should be an opportunity for further discussion of whether the merge was advisable, or whether it should be undone. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Well there is no WP:SIGCOV of Blexit, just that Kanye didn't like it. Per WP:NOTNEWS, we shouldn't be having an article about Blexit just because the word is in the news, just like we shouldn't have an article about Kanye meeting with Trump. There is a lot of articles with a less narrow scope, but they don't say anything of substance, merely criticizing the "concept" of a "Blexit". (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) w umbolo   ^^^  20:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I did find the original AP story about it (before West distanced himself), and USA Today and an updated Atlanta Black Star article on his later announcement disavowing it (better sources than most we currently cite). I also see Vanity Fair and the New Zealand Herald, so I wouldn't say no significant coverage. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Reference for possible demerge
 * redirect page
 * original article (stub, dated)
 * original article talk
 * original project tags (all "mid-importance): United States, Conservatism, Politics
 * stats on Blexit show 40+ hits on some days pageviews

Term Democratic Plantation
 * Term is not new
 * Cain won't stay on the democrat plantation
 * 'How the ‘Democratic plantation’ became one of conservatives’ favorite slurs'

Black Republicans
 * Herman Cain 2012 presidential campaign
 * Political positions of Herman Cain
 * National Black Republican Association
 * The Loneliness of the Black Republican Pragmatic Politics and the Pursuit of Power

Blexit
 * Kanye West (predominately a musician) involvement (logo design?), and trademark infringement claim (not infrequent) appear De minimis to the main topic, "Blexit".
 * What is Blexit? Candace Owens explains plan to lead ‘black exit’ from Democratic Party, impact 2020
 * Inside the Inaugural Blexit Rally: The Black and Latino Community Will Save America — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4C3:4000:7EB0:DCB1:E4F5:A8A6:BFD1 (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Blexit is silly; the end. Thebearfootaquarius (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

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-. 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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 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, Daily Beast and Gizmodo 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. 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)

I have looked into the ‘Daily Beast’ article describing Owens as ‘far-right’ and it was written by an ‘entertainment correspondent’ with incredibly dubious credentials pertaining to political science, or politics in general. I am lost as to how this can be considered a reliable source to establish someone’s political ideology - especially as the ‘far-right’ label was ostensibly a throwaway comment in the headline, a headline that reeks of sensationalism. Raidiohead55 (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2021 (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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 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. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( 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)
 * Pending-protection-unlocked.svg 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


75.105.125.202 (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ – 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". 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)
 * , 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.”" 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: --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)
 * ❌ – 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
,, 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.

, you tagged this section as having too many quotes, so here's an improved version. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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", 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"? You are claiming that this is "merely a short description of Owens" 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 and yet when you added the word glib to the article you did not attribute it to the Washington Post. How do you explain this?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Your latest edit maintains the long quote from Business Insider, 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." How do you explain your behavior?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I believe the current version is very balanced and accurate. 84percent (talk) 06:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 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. w umbolo   ^^^  09:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , 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)
 * 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)


 * in a BLP, everything needs an inline reference. Please provide citations when adding any content. w umbolo   ^^^  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. w umbolo   ^^^  09:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point. Initially the source for the "glib" comment, added by, 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)
 * WP:CSECTION. w umbolo   ^^^  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
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. w umbolo  ^^^  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)
 * She didn't mention Obama or the trend at all. She's talking on the scope of the U.S. history. w umbolo   ^^^  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? w umbolo   ^^^  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)