Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:::It appears that conservative is the more common label. "Far right" is a contentious label given that Misplaced Pages's article on the subject links the label to Nazis etc. The original edit trying to justify the label contained some OR in order to justify the label. Even if we have some sources that use the label, given the BLP concerns here we should scrutinize them for quality. Such labels are often reporter opinion mixed into factual reports on what she said. ] (]) 13:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
:::It appears that conservative is the more common label. "Far right" is a contentious label given that Misplaced Pages's article on the subject links the label to Nazis etc. The original edit trying to justify the label contained some OR in order to justify the label. Even if we have some sources that use the label, given the BLP concerns here we should scrutinize them for quality. Such labels are often reporter opinion mixed into factual reports on what she said. ] (]) 13:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
:::: Yeah, I think this is linked to the very recent anti-semitic/blood libel stuff. Whilst Owens may have some views commonly linked to the far-right, I don't see a preponderance of sources calling her that. This is not a situation like Greene or Boebert (yet). ] 19:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
:::: Yeah, I think this is linked to the very recent anti-semitic/blood libel stuff. Whilst Owens may have some views commonly linked to the far-right, I don't see a preponderance of sources calling her that. This is not a situation like Greene or Boebert (yet). ] 19:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
:I agree with the removal of far-right here. The sources are insufficient to use this label in the lede right now; of the ones added with the actual article, the only RSP I see there is The Guardian, as the article from The Hill doesn't even use the term far-right. She's much more widely described as a conservative commentator (as opposed to the above examples of MTG and Boebert who are expressly called "far-right politicians" in many articles) and unless this changes the sources aren't overwhelming enough to justify it being in the lede. ''']''' <sup>(] - ])</sup> 19:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
:I agree with the removal of far-right here. The sources are insufficient to use this label in the lede right now; of the ones added with the original edit to the article, the only RSP I see there is The Guardian, as the article from The Hill doesn't even use the term far-right. She's much more widely described as a conservative commentator (as opposed to the above examples of MTG and Boebert who are expressly called "far-right politicians" in many articles) and unless this changes the sources aren't overwhelming enough to justify it being in the lede. ''']''' <sup>(] - ])</sup> 19:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
== Daily Wire career in body ==
== Daily Wire career in body ==
Revision as of 19:05, 24 March 2024
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.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
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
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 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
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
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 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.
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
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
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture 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.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in to an autoconfirmed or confirmed account (usually granted automatically to accounts with 10 edits and an age of 4 days)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
So after responding to @Nlivataye's talk page post above. I reviewed the article for any potential WP:UNDUE material. After taking a look at the sub-section " LGBT Rights" (Under section "Political Views"), the sub-section contains a few WP:MREL and WP:GUNREL sourcing citations. We have Mic.com which isn't on the WP:RSP, but it was singularly sourced in the first sentence about banning transitioning individuals from joining the military. The next sentence about Disney is sourced by Forbes Contributor which is classified as generally unreliable on RSP, as well as a marginally reliable HuffPo Political piece. (Which if we remove the gunrel Forbes piece will be a single sourced mrel piece). We also have a sentence singularly cited with a gunrel YouTube url. I have no issue with leaving the WP:GREL cited material. But the other content only cited by gunrel and mrel need to be removed. Eruditess (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
I've fixed those cites by adding others. Owens' own Twitter comment about Disney is still there for everyone to see. I'm not too bothered about the military issue, that could probably be removed as it's not that important - Owens has attacked far more LGBT targets. Black Kite (talk)17:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Text stating that Owens endorsed Vivek Ramaswamy for President has been correctly removed more than once for citing deprecated sources per WP:RSP. I've found two sources not listed as deprecated that contradict each other on this. Given the contradictions, I think this can be left out of the article, but I thought the sources might be worth sharing here.
Mr. Ramaswamy also has played up his connections to two prominent personalities in the online conservative press-sphere, a Daily Wire host, Candace Owens, and a podcaster, Tim Pool, touting Ms. Owens’s endorsement in a video released by his campaign.
Asked if her appearance with Ramaswamy amounted to an endorsement, Owens did not directly answer. She said while she had "never endorsed a candidate in the past," she came to Iowa because she believed her appearance "would invite more media” and that "people would come out and listen to what he had to say."
yeah, this sort of "did they or didn't they" is why WP:ENDORSE is clear: it has to be an RS or a verifiably the person primary source and they really have to say "endorse" or a close synonym, and Owens appears to be specifically avoiding the word "endorse" or something amounting to it - David Gerard (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Owen's Crusade against Macron's wife
Given that it has raised a lot of heat and been widely reported, maybe her latest determination to "out" Macron's wife as transsexual would deserve mention in the "Controversies" section?
Since some editors are objecting to the inclusion of the term Far-right without discussing it on the talk page, I'll start the discussion.
I believe the use of the term is appropriate here. There's quite a few news sources (provided in the Special:Diff/1215197468) that use the term when referring to her, and a quick search findsevenmore.
Variety, CNN. However I think since this is very recent news and determining how the media is describing her I suggest waiting a bit more to see what the language around her is. I suggest we wait til the 24th and wait to see how this develops. Chefs-kiss (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Just a bunch of examples for 'conversative': 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, including one calling her "the face of black conservatism". And we literally have a section titled "Conservative activism", so unless someone wants to rewrite her entire Career and Views section, this should not go in the lead --FMSky (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
It appears that conservative is the more common label. "Far right" is a contentious label given that Misplaced Pages's article on the subject links the label to Nazis etc. The original edit trying to justify the label contained some OR in order to justify the label. Even if we have some sources that use the label, given the BLP concerns here we should scrutinize them for quality. Such labels are often reporter opinion mixed into factual reports on what she said. Springee (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I think this is linked to the very recent anti-semitic/blood libel stuff. Whilst Owens may have some views commonly linked to the far-right, I don't see a preponderance of sources calling her that. This is not a situation like Greene or Boebert (yet). Black Kite (talk)19:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the removal of far-right here. The sources are insufficient to use this label in the lede right now; of the ones added with the original edit to the article, the only RSP I see there is The Guardian, as the article from The Hill doesn't even use the term far-right. She's much more widely described as a conservative commentator (as opposed to the above examples of MTG and Boebert who are expressly called "far-right politicians" in many articles) and unless this changes the sources aren't overwhelming enough to justify it being in the lede. ser!19:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Daily Wire career in body
The intro mentions Candace's departure from the DailyWire, however this is not verified in the body. In general, WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY so it would be good to cover her 'career' and time (and eventual departure) at DailyWire in the body. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=small}
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the