Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:23, 15 April 2022

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Candace Owens article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Connecticut This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Journalism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women writers Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women in Red This article was created or improved as part of the Women in Red project. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. African diaspora Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened: May 31 to June 6, 2020 June 7 to 13, 2020

Section sizes Section size for Candace Owens (38 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 10,121 10,121 Early life and education 7,207 7,207 Early career 19 6,634 Degree180 and anti-conservative blog 3,743 3,743 Privacy violation, Gamergate, and political transformation 2,872 2,872 Conservative activism 11,066 21,802 BLEXIT Foundation 5,843 5,843 Product promotion 4,893 4,893 Political views 7,722 88,113 Anti-black racism and Black Lives Matter 15,196 15,196 Women's rights 4,373 4,373 LGBT rights 7,733 7,733 Donald Trump 4,072 4,072 Immigration 2,343 2,343 Science 862 862 Climate change 2,772 2,772 Welfare 460 460 Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany 9,368 9,368 COVID-19 pandemic and vaccination 15,401 15,401 Russia and Ukraine 4,768 4,768 Jews and Judaism 9,291 9,291 Israel and Palestine 3,752 3,752 Legal issues 20 7,652 Kimberly Klacik lawsuit 4,870 4,870 Other 2,762 2,762 Controversies 20 26,602 Dispute with family of Mollie Tibbetts 2,986 2,986 Support of Kanye West 7,346 7,346 Promotion of conspiracy theories 4,403 4,403 Mention in Christchurch shooter's manifesto 5,440 5,440 Planned 2024 Australasian tour 6,407 6,407 Personal life 4,655 4,655 Bibliography 687 687 Filmography 1,283 1,283 Notes 24 24 References 28 28 Further reading 290 290 External links 2,756 2,756 Total 177,854 177,854

Provocateur, a term to watch out for

Here is another label we could add to the list of Candace Owens' professions in the opening sentence: an agent provocateur. Obviously, I am not going to add it yet since I am wary about being seen as digging up dirt about a political figure, especially if it means without consensus. However, the five sources I have below suggest that it is a term worth considering or at least watching out for. Of the sources I listed as of this post, the first is a George Washington University publication by a department that specializes in extremism, one is a newspaper of record, another is one of the American Big Three news broadcasting stations, another a reputable fact-checking website, and the last a conservative newspaper identified as a situational source. The list may expand in the future, but at the moment, I would be most professional to discuss the changes first. FreeMediaKid$ 12:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

No, we should really avoid labels like these. They can be controversial and in this case this limited set of sources is not sufficient to say she is widely known as X. Also, provocateur is a label that can have different meanings to different readers. It would be better to describe her actions rather than apply a subjective and vague label. Springee (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I see. While I could dig up a few more sources describing her as a provocateur, it seems that that label is best saved for individuals who are widely known to espouse fringe views or advocate for extreme measures such as Alex Jones. Actually, now that I think of it, "far-right" is more descriptive of people like Jones (and entities like One America News Network) since it strongly implies that they get things riled up, but in a particular way that "provocateur" cannot. Owens, however controversial, does not seem to espouse strictly bizarre views.

I was going to suggest a different improvement based on yours, but then I realized that the lead is a comprehensive, if still concise, summary of the subject. What I get from it, however, is scant information about the extent of her notability and how she earned it. A black liberal-turned-conservative who supports Donald Trump is appropriately written as one factor, but I think another factor contributing to her notability is the tendency of her views to prove controversial, and they in turn have sometimes been characterized as "far-right" or "alt-right". It is the same kind of thing that helped Rush Limbaugh be brought to notability, minus the "far-right" part. Correct me if I am wrong, but I imagine that she would have received less coverage overall and considerably less about her views if not for the controversy. FreeMediaKid$ 04:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh that is hilarious considering yesterday she published a tweet encouraging an invasion of Canada. Just like she encouraged the same in Australia last year. Do as you wish though. I'm certainly too biased to do anything. Goddale120 (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

References

• Meleagrou-Hitchens, Alexander; Crawford, Blyth; Wutke, Valentin (December 2, 2021). Rise of the Reactionaries: Comparing the Ideologies of Salafi-Jihadism and White Supremacist Extremism (PDF). Program on Extremism (Report). George Washington University. p. 32. Retrieved December 20, 2021.
• Brockell, Gillian (April 7, 2021). "Candace Owens compared the Capitol insurrection to the Reichstag fire. Here's why that's absurd". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 20, 2021.
• Seitz-Wald, Alex (August 29, 2021). "How Larry Elder upended the California recall". NBC News. Retrieved December 20, 2021.
• Lee, Jessica (September 15, 2020). "Is BLM To Blame for the Shooting of 2 Deputies?". Snopes. Retrieved December 20, 2021.
• Rosas, Julio (May 2, 2019). "Candace Owens quits as communications director for Turning Point USA". Washington Examiner. Retrieved December 20, 2020.

LGBT

On 12/28/21 Candace tweeted: “Any adult who encourages transgenderism in children is a child predator, bar none.“

I feel this is a very important detail to add to the LGBT portion of her page, as it certainly changes the narrative of what the current entry suggests. 2603:6011:6228:52D9:38D1:CEFE:D6E6:806C (talk) 07:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

• Well, then you need to find a secondary source that agrees with you. GMG 23:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Canada convoy protest

If Rolling Stone and Newsweek aren't sufficient to include the following, would The Independent, or Business Insider, or The Globe and Mail, or The Atlantic do?

In February 2022, during the Canada convoy protest, Owens called for American troops to be sent to Canada "to deal with the tyrannical reign of Justin Trudeau Castro."

References

1. Wade, Peter (21 February 2022). "MAGA Chuds to Ukraine: Drop Dead". Rolling Stone India. Lower Parel (w), Mumbai, India. Retrieved 21 February 2022.
2. Palmer, Ewan (February 20, 2022). "Candace Owens calls to "send American troops to Canada" as police quell protests". Newsweek. Retrieved March 4, 2022.
3. Graziosi, Graig (February 21, 2022). "Candace Owens calls for US to invade Canada in support of truckers". The Independent. Retrieved March 5, 2022.
4. Porter, Tom (February 21, 2022). "Candace Owens called for the US to invade Canada to stop Justin Trudeau cracking down on trucker protests". Business Insider. Retrieved March 5, 2022.
5. Martin, Lawrence (February 23, 2022). "Opinion: Is polarization in Canada comparable to the U.S.? Not even close". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved March 5, 2022.
6. Jong-Fast, Molly (March 4, 2022). "A Taxonomy of Right-Wing Dog Whistles". The Atlantic. Retrieved March 5, 2022.

-- Pemilligan (talk) 02:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

This is the sort of content that needs to be included carefully. No reasonable person would read what she is saying and assume she literally means we need to use the military to invade Canada. That she is making a rhetorical point about Canada's action towards non-violent protesters is something worth noting but then the question is how? Ideally we don't report the rhetorical statement, rather we note that she was critical of the actions of the Canadian authorities. That gets the factual information across without including quotes that, absent context imply something that isn't true to her message. This is especially true when, in context, the rhetoric's meaning is clear but when presented out of context it can be used to imply a message that is not true to the original. What we should not do is include the quote with no context. That is a bad partisan journalism type thing that would have no place in an encyclopedia. Springee (talk) 04:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

BTW, reviewing the sources, most are not great sources for politics. The Atlantic often is but that particular article is actually poor. It said of Owen's tweet, "take on Russia’s war against Ukraine". However, Owens made the statement on 18 Feb, a few days after Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act to deal with a non-violent protest. Russia's invasion was still a week in the future at that point (25 Feb). To imply that Owens said this while there was an active war in the Ukraine is misleading at best. Springee (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian propaganda and false claims regarding NATO

The currently stated piece has only two citations, both opinion pieces from newspapers. Currently stated is that she has promoted Russian propaganda (itself a questionable statement as what constitutes propaganda, what constitutes personal view, and what constitutes vocal support for a cause based on personal belief is not determined).

it further states "including false claims that NATO promised Russia not to accept new members" This is controversial in the extreme. Such statements were repeatedly made by various heads of state of NATO countries, but never by NATO itself - as shown in the cited NSA documents and explained in detail -citing necessary sections- by the National Security Archive of George Washington University (as opposed to an opinion piece in a newspaper). Politifact rates it as "mostly false" and cites that the primary reason given by prominent academics is that although Russia was given these assurances, they were never included in agreements, and although it was done on record and publicly, it was never from NATO, but from ministers and heads of state of NATO countries.

This is not impartial. Ms. Owens must be held accountable for her words and They must be public knowledge, but we do so in a factual and impartial manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.184.183.37 (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

14 April large edits

NikolaosFanaris recently added then restored the "far-right" description as well as material in the body which was sourced to Newsweek and Rolling Stone. The restored content is here . The material sourced to Newsweek and Rolling Stone should be removed both because the sources are questionable and because it comes across as not summarizing a view. Sadly many BLP articles include such "outrange of the day" sort of media bites. The other major part of the edit was an attempt to put "far-right" in the opening sentence in Wiki voice. This is problematic on several fronts. "Far-right" is both subjective (when does someone move from "right" to "far-right") and can be viewed as a contentious/value-laden label thus LABEL applies. To put "far-right" in wiki-voice the sourcing needs to be especially strong and support the view that "far-right" is a near universal term. The sources here don't rise to that level. The Atlantic is effectively a letters to the editor section. The other two are behind paywalls so it's harder to verify exactly what is claimed but both appear to be cases where we have a generalized statement, "the far right media" followed by mention of specific quotes but it doesn't say "Owens is a far-right...". These descriptions may be DUE with attribution in the body but in the opening sentence they fail IMPARTIAL as well as LABEL. Springee (talk) 19:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Both articles have been removed and replaced with Huffington Post and Forbes. In regards to the far-right label, I don't see an issue with specifying her true ideological components as we should in an encyclopedia. Since I don't really want to discuss ideology in depth here, there is no doubt that she sits in the far-right position of the political spectrum. Everything in the views section of Owens already points to that direction : anti-LGBT, anti-abortion, pro-Russian, pro-Trump views can back the far-right label easily. Not sure why this is debatable. Her views are out there, why not highlight their true nature? NikolaosFanaris (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that sort of "she said X, isn't that outrageous" type additions are not encyclopedic and should be avoided. They don't illustrate ideology so much as her rhetorical style. If the issue is how should we discuss her rhetorical style then find sources that actually talk about that. This outrange of the week sort of stuff just isn't what we should have in a BLP. Absent consensus to include the content should be removed. Your opinion that her views back the far-right label isn't sufficient. Please review LABEL. Springee (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not my opinion, it's logic. These are ideological aspects of political figures, part of the political spectrum. Are you familiar with GAL/TAN? If not I highly suggest you do some reading. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

We can say what her positions are without using contentious labels. There isn't consensus (wp:CON) to make these changes. Please self revert. Springee (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The controversial nature of her positions should be summarised by one clear label, which accurately describes her ideological positioning. There is nothing procovative about ideology or the political spectrum. It's pure political analysis. Reverting now, but hopefully more users will contribute to this conversation. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

That violates impartial. Misplaced Pages isn't supposed to pick sides. We can say what her positions are but applying labels, especially value-laden ones, puts us into the area of picking sides vs just telling the readers. Springee (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Political Science and the GAL/TAN scale are not POV. No one is picking any sides here - it's just political analysis of rhetoric and views, hence its widespread use on Misplaced Pages. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: I just re-read Springee's original post. It is quite misleading to claim that the two sources I added cannot be accessed because of paywall. Both articles are peer-reviewed papers in open access - one is published in Information, Communication & Society, and the other in Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism . I find the points on POV quite misleading as well. I am using two academic articles to back claims about the GAL/TAN scale, which are being used by political scientists globally. What's POV is the continuous promotion of the misleading argument that the GAL/TAN scale should not be used on Misplaced Pages or in politics. This is exactly what far-right actors like Owens claim; ideologically speaking they are trying to convince audiences that they don't belong anywhere. What's at stake here is that we might end up misleading readers on the ideological positioning of such political actors, who are desperately trying to whitewash their ideological contradictions. I consider Owens to be the definition of far-right activism on social media. There is no doubt that her ideas on race, sexuality, human rights and globalisation are often radical. With that said, I am patiently awating for other contributors to decide on this matter. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Please make sure you check what sources I was referring to before you accuse me (or other editors) of "misleading". The sources in question were the ones you added here . One of those sources was USA Today. It said I had to subscribe to read the article. The second was the article, "What they do in the shadows: examining the far-right networks on Telegram". It also showed as requiring a subscription. That doesn't mean those sources are unusable. It means I cannot verify they support your claims. This is important because editors often will use a source that suggests or implies a label applies to a person as proof that we can use the label in Wiki-voice. That is not acceptable when dealing with value-laden labels. Since you mentioned another article, "Islamophobes are not all the same! A study of far right actors on Twitter", it should be noted that it too requires a subscription to access. Perhaps you are on a university campus where your university has access to those journals without seeing the paywall. Springee (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

d

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Connecticut articles
• Unknown-importance Connecticut articles
• WikiProject Connecticut articles
• B-Class Conservatism articles
• Low-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• B-Class Journalism articles
• Low-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• B-Class American politics articles
• Unknown-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class Women writers articles
• Low-importance Women writers articles
• WikiProject Women articles
• WikiProject Women writers articles
• WikiProject Women in Red articles not associated with a meetup
• All WikiProject Women in Red pages
• B-Class African diaspora articles
• Mid-importance African diaspora articles
• WikiProject African diaspora articles
• Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report