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.
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 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.
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
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
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 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.
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.
This is NOT long standing, go look at the history. This was BOLDLY added to the lead, so I will be removing it per BRD until there is consensus for its inclusion in the lead. --Malerooster (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
It looks like longstanding content to me. Regardless, BRD still applies to that content, so stick to discussion and don't edit war. That content has implicit consensus and needs a consensus to remove it. BTW, this fringe attempt to delete does not look good for you, so be careful about deleting mainstream RS content. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
It might look that way, but it isn't, what can I say? Do you want to take a stab at rewritting the lead? Also, can you provide a list of RS that describe the subject as a far right conspiracy theorist? They can be reviewed and added to the article if there is consensus. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
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)
Due in the body but in the lead? How much of the body focuses on conspiracy theories? Not much. So why would that be in the lead? Springee (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
I'd say it's definitely lead-worthy; coverage treats it as a major aspect of her notability. If you feel there's not enough in the body then you should expand that aspect of the body rather than remove it from the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
If so then why is so little of her BLP actually talking about the topic? Do you have some sort of data/examples to back your claim? I assume you know that the LEADFOLLOWSBODY. That means we look at the body and summarize it for the lead. The body doesn't put much emphasis on conspiracy claims. Perhaps it would be better just to say she is often outspoken and her comments are frequently controversial including those related to COVID and COVID responses. That at least makes it clear that there are a broad range of comments that have resulted in criticism. Your suggestion that we alter the article body to fit the lead confuses how things supposed to be done. We don't, or at least aren't supposed to, fill in the body because someone wants keep specific negative content in the lead. Springee (talk) 04:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Whoever this Springee is, they're clearly not open to viewpoints other than their own and it's antithetical to the idea of this website. As I posted above, both Springee and Malerooster are intentionally watering down the main concepts Candace Owens is synonymous with and they bring shame on themselves and this website by doing so. Jtmp96 (talk) 15:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
regardless of politics or personal views, the non negotiable rule to follow is that of neutrality. The purpose is to not lean in any one direction, as this is an encyclopedia, not a personal blog. Some adjectives are even a little redundant, like "falsely". WP does not collect truth, only facts, therefore, always let facts speak for themselves, this will allow the reader to decide for themselves how they want to feel about about a subject matter. Consider "nauseating", or other value judgement adjectives. Saussure4661 (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
We must maintain WP:ENCYCLOPEDICWP: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)
LGBT
So we completely ignore that she's best friends with an openly gay man Dave Rubin and she has stated she has 4 gay cousins. We just want to paint her as anti LGBT? Doesn't she support same sex marriage anymore and why was it removed from this section. Very bias and I'm speaking as someone who isn't particularly fond of her but facts are facts. Nlivataye (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
So I just reviewed the whole article and I didn't see any sentence that flat out calls her anti-LGBT. She has a sub-section named "LGBT" rights under the section "Political views", which after taking a closer look at, has several issues with its sourcing. I will make another talk page post under this one addressing the issues. Eruditess (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
LGBT Rights sub-section sourcing is problematic.
So after responding to @Nlivataye's talk page post above. I reviewed the article for any potential WP:UNDUE material. After taking a look at the sub-section " LGBT Rights" (Under section "Political Views"), the sub-section contains a few WP:MREL and WP:GUNREL sourcing citations. We have Mic.com which isn't on the WP:RSP, but it was singularly sourced in the first sentence about banning transitioning individuals from joining the military. The next sentence about Disney is sourced by Forbes Contributor which is classified as generally unreliable on RSP, as well as a marginally reliable HuffPo Political piece. (Which if we remove the gunrel Forbes piece will be a single sourced mrel piece). We also have a sentence singularly cited with a gunrel YouTube url. I have no issue with leaving the WP:GREL cited material. But the other content only cited by gunrel and mrel need to be removed. Eruditess (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
The Honorable
Reading from The Honourable article we find "In the United Kingdom, all sons and daughters of viscounts and barons (including the holders of life peerages) and the younger sons of earls are styled with this prefix." As the child of a Lord, this means George Farmer is styled this way. And given a wife shares the title of her husband this means Candace Owens is in fact The Honorable Candace Owens. So do stop deleting this correct form of address. Llevenius (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Does this comply with MOS ? Also, is there a reference for this that describes her title? If not it should probably be left off. Springee (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
In those sources the title appears to apply when used to the couple rather than as an individual. I think it's an interesting fact and could be included in the part about her marriage. I'm not sure it should be applied as you are trying but I will let others weigh in. Springee (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
This matter should not really be an issue of any sort. She (Candace) is the wife of the son of a baron in the UK. She is automatically styled with the honorific Honorable. Her marriage to George Farmer (which is very well reported to have actually indeed occurred on 31 August 2019) is the proof that she is entitled to this honorific. The fact that she is entitled to this honorific is not (or should not be) debatable. The only real question is where in a biographical article should her designated honorific be used. It is this latter question that is a matter for the WP:MOS. Regardless of anything else, WP person info-boxes have provision for specifying the honorific of its subject. At the very least, one would expect that her honorific be specified within the info-box. If someone thinks that the honorific should not be specified inside the info-box, then that discussion should be taken up by the experts of that particular info-box (the person info-box in the present case) and otherwise would be a separate question than anything to do with Candace. If the info-box developers (experts) made provision for an honorific (which they have done up until the present time), then that should be honored and used until the info-box itself removes that provision. If someone feels that provision for an honorific within the person info-box should be removed, you should take your case to the talk page of the info-box in question; namely, Template talk:Infobox person --L.Smithfield (talk) 01:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
The Honorable, as used in the context of Brittish nobility, can be found in the infoboxes of, to name a few examples; John Byron, Robert Boyle, Anthony Berry, Nigella Lawson, and Gwyneth Dunwoody. So I find no reason why the same would not apply to Owens. Maybe it would be appropriate to add a sentence in Personal life to clarify that she is entitled to the style following her marriage. Llevenius (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
"The Honourable" is used for a large amount of reasons, not just nobility (many of those you've mentioned above are not nobility). However it would only apply to Owens in the sense that she is the wife of a son of a baron, and therefore she would be styled The Hon. Mrs. George Farmer not The Hon. Candace Owens (or Candace Farmer). Black Kite (talk)10:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
That was what I was thinking/wondering about. I don't see an issue mentioning that in the article as the provided Yahoo news source does support that, as a couple, they have that title. It doesn't in my reading support that the title would independently apply to her. Springee (talk) 12:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I took the section out but would have no objection to it being put back with a more accurate reading of what her title actually is. Obviously, as a couple, The Hon. George and Candace Farmer is correct as well. I think the Yahoo source just puts it clumsily. Black Kite (talk)12:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
I have never in my life before heard of a couple title. Owens is to be styled The Honorable, irregardless of what follows be it Candace Owens or Mrs Geroge Farmer. Llevenius (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
I didn't say it was a couple title, I was pointing out how the "Honourable" should be written when it refers to the couple (i.e. not The Hon. George and Hon. Candace Farmer). And Owens is always The Hon. Mrs. George Farmer if you're going to use the honorific, not her own name (as her honorific only stems from her marriage). Black Kite (talk)14:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
I think it is an interesting fact, I wouldnt mind a small section mentioning it as more trivia. However, if we can't verify that this is correct with WP:RS I think it lacks notability and would unfortunately fall under WP:OR. MaximusEditor (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Education in infobox
This parameter shouldn't be used for non-graduates, per
https://en.wikipedia.org/Template:Infobox_person/doc "It is usually not relevant to include either parameter for non-graduates, but article talk page consensus may conclude otherwise"
In this case I would say that it's very relevant to her career as a journalist, especially since it's discussed further along in the article. I'd like to hear what others have to say. –dlthewave☎18:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I would leave it out. My general feeling is this is a line for information about secondary degrees. As an example, is notable for not having graduated high school yet was a big proponent of education later in life. His bio box doesn't have an education line. Springee (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Impertinent. Actually the article as a whole has potential but is a conglomerate of negativity. I'd wager several other articles in the political sphere written and slanted like this would have been rewritten many a moon ago--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=small}
Done -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)