Jump to content

Talk:Candace Owens

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nlivataye (talk | contribs) at 06:42, 20 May 2023 (→‎LGBT: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

I have reverted this. What do others think? --Malerooster (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Not really. --Malerooster (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Malerooster, why did you remove the paragraph about conspiracy theories? –dlthewave ☎ 23:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Malerooster & Springee you bring shame on yourselves and the integrity of Wikipedia. Jtmp96 (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

New lead section rewrite?

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

I removed 'activist' because she is not an activist. She is a host for a right wing program that promotes disinformation. 162.245.142.251 (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Candace Amber Owens Farmer (née Owens; born April 29, 1989) is an American conservative author, talk show host, political commentator, and activist.[1][2][3][4] Initially critical of United States President Donald Trump and the Republican Party, Owens has been recognized in part for her pro-Trump activism as a black woman,[5] in addition to her criticism of Black Lives Matter and the Democratic Party.[6][7][8] On several occasions she has claimed that the effects of white supremacy and nationalism are exaggerated, especially when compared to other issues facing Black Americans.[9][10] She worked for the conservative advocacy group Turning Point USA between 2017 and 2019 as its communications director.[11] In 2021, she joined The Daily Wire, where she hosts Candace, a political talk show.[12] Owens has generated controversy through her social media profiles and television & media appearances by expressing anti-lockdown views[15], anti-vaccination opinions during the COVID-19 pandemic, among other views.[16]

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

What's wrong with the version we've had since last March? With the bold sentence, you've made the mistake of being "neutral" in the common-use sense instead of the Wikipedia/NPOV sense. When someone is promoting conspiracy theories or spreading misinformation, we label it as such rather than using watered-down words like "views". This comes across as whitewashing. –dlthewave ☎ 03:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This really looks like whitewashing. RS don't coddle her, so we are not allowed to either. Doing so would violate NPOV by neutering the clearly negative descriptions from RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We need to be careful about claims of whitewashing. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a place where we can collect every negative claim made about a person and turn things into a article that tries to persuade the reader the BLP is a bad person. It's best when we use the lead for the hard facts and leave the subjective assessments in the body where they can be provided with more context. I personally far more BLP intros should be like the proposal vs reading like they were written by HuffPo writers with an ax to grind. Again, IMPARTIAL means we present it as if we were impartial to the subject of the article. I see there is a similar debate going on at The Daily Caller about this sort of thing. I'm not involved (I don't think I've ever edited the article or talk page) but it seems typical of issues related to Wikipedia articles on right media figures/sources. Springee (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my fault that our leads are supposed to briefly mention content from the body. Editors, per NPOV, are supposed to edit neutrally and just look at the body, then let its content dictate the lead. Not mentioning these well-documented issues would be editorial POV interference, and that's not neutral efiting.
The reason that more people on the right are affected is pretty simple. Their sources are unreliable, they believe the conspiracy theories pushed by Trump and all their right-wing media heroes, and RS universally out their nonsense. It really can't have any other outcome until the day you can successfully change policy to treat unreliable sources as if they are reliable. It appears that may be your desire. Is it? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 Done -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Per ONUS if this is the first time the material is challenged then we need consensus to include. Additionally, this is a BLP so contentious material are typically removed absent consensus. Springee (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of how longstanding, the content seems entirely WP:DUE to me. Generalrelative (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Neutral lead rewrite again

Duplicate section, please discuss above.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Can somebody who is neutral towards the subject please take a stab at writing a lead section? I will try again over the next few weeks. Thank you. Malerooster (talk) 03:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC) hatting this, already being discussed above. –dlthewave ☎ 04:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Candace_Owens&oldid=1155896008"