This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 87.147.215.175 (talk) at 10:09, 19 October 2024 (→Kamala Harris: Family Not Black?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 10:09, 19 October 2024 by 87.147.215.175 (talk) (→Kamala Harris: Family Not Black?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
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 sourced must 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Warning: active arbitration remedies 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:
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: |
Removal of "far-right" descriptor
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 finds even more.
Other American politicans pages such as Marjorie Taylor Greene use the term with a similar number of citations. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 20:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- She's far more commonly called conservative. MTG is a rare exception for this extreme tag, see the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Marjorie_Taylor_Greene#Neutrality_Dispute_Tag --FMSky (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with using the label of far right. As is the standard on wikipedia we use what the media uses to describe her. There are 6 different citations in listed Special:Diff/1215197468. Chefs-kiss (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Most sources call her conservative --FMSky (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Fair point. I did find her article a bit unorganized but its true. As i said i think we should wait to see Chefs-kiss (talk) 10:02, 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. 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 like that you added "yet" to this comment back in March, because the situation looks much different now in August, post-Mengele comments. I am proposing putting far right back in the descriptor. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 10:49, 26 August 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)
- Most sources call her conservative --FMSky (talk) 21:11, 23 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)
- Per above, I agree that this doesn't belong in the MOS:FIRST, as is not a widespread description. Also agree with the MTG and Boebert comparison; she's not quite there yet, probably one more antisemitic controversy away at present. I have however replaced the MREL reference with multiple GREL in the body per this edit , as it appears very much due at this point. I don't really see how this can be summarised in the lead without regurgitation, apart from in the final paragraph at a stretch, but I do wonder whether multiple GREL makes it relevant in the infobox under movement, given the quantity and quality of current references. CNC (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Can we re-visit this conversation? The discussion of whether or not Owens is far right took place in March, when she was considerably more mainstream. Since then, she has had countless comments that would put her safely in the neo-Nazi camp, to a much greater extent than others (such as MTG) that carry the label of far right. I propose adding "far right" to the descriptor. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 10:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Per the sourcing of far-right, it's pretty shocking to have
"Described as "the new face of black conservatism" by The Washington Post"
in the lead from a single source, compared to the WP:DUE description of far-right from a bunch of RS. For starters the description from 2019, while relevant back then, seems considerably outdated and no other sources appear to describe Owens as such. As someone on the right that has delved into antisemitism, being described as far-right also appears entirely accurate. CNC (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)- Thank you for the additional information and insight. I am implementing both of these changes; if anyone takes issue please respond to this thread with your input. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 11:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- See WP:RECENTISM --FMSky (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but I do not think that this is at all reasonable ground for a revert. Looking at this issue historically, Candace Owens was already carrying the far-right label at the beginning of this debate and the fact that the events of the last 6 months have established "far right" as being an appropriate descriptor makes this update more relevant, not less. Furthermore, I gave ample time for others to interject on this topic and you could have contributed to the discussion and waited for consensus. I did that, and I added sources. Please make suggestions to the talk page and show that other users agree before simply reverting changes. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 10:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- We dont usually put these labels in the 1st sentence anyway. I can be mentioned elsewhere --FMSky (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I would disagree. Once there is consensus that a pundit or activist is far-right, that is always in the descriptor, at least in every page that I have seen. If it is a gray area, I might agree, but that is not the case here. Try googling "Candace Owens far right" and seeing what comes up. If there is another place in the article you think it is better placed, than feel free to suggest it. But if you are going to simply revert my edits without any sort of consensus, that is not proper decorum. Is this your plan moving forward or are you willing to open up the discussion and wait for consensus? Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 11:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- What do you think about the current version`--FMSky (talk) 11:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I wish you had asked before doing two instant reverts in close proximity to my edits. I simply don't have time for edit warring so I am okay with the descriptor as it is until we hear from more contributors. However, I think that the 2019 Washington Post description is not relevant and I think it should be removed. If you disagree, please explain. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 11:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think its very relevant but since you and another user have objected to its inclusion i've removed it FMSky (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think the WaPo descriptor is very relevant, hence referenced in the body, but is far from due for the lead based on weight of soruces. At present being described as both conservative and far-right appears accurate, based on references above describing her as both. CNC (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think its very relevant but since you and another user have objected to its inclusion i've removed it FMSky (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I wish you had asked before doing two instant reverts in close proximity to my edits. I simply don't have time for edit warring so I am okay with the descriptor as it is until we hear from more contributors. However, I think that the 2019 Washington Post description is not relevant and I think it should be removed. If you disagree, please explain. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 11:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- What do you think about the current version`--FMSky (talk) 11:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I would disagree. Once there is consensus that a pundit or activist is far-right, that is always in the descriptor, at least in every page that I have seen. If it is a gray area, I might agree, but that is not the case here. Try googling "Candace Owens far right" and seeing what comes up. If there is another place in the article you think it is better placed, than feel free to suggest it. But if you are going to simply revert my edits without any sort of consensus, that is not proper decorum. Is this your plan moving forward or are you willing to open up the discussion and wait for consensus? Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 11:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- We dont usually put these labels in the 1st sentence anyway. I can be mentioned elsewhere --FMSky (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but I do not think that this is at all reasonable ground for a revert. Looking at this issue historically, Candace Owens was already carrying the far-right label at the beginning of this debate and the fact that the events of the last 6 months have established "far right" as being an appropriate descriptor makes this update more relevant, not less. Furthermore, I gave ample time for others to interject on this topic and you could have contributed to the discussion and waited for consensus. I did that, and I added sources. Please make suggestions to the talk page and show that other users agree before simply reverting changes. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 10:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Section needed for Antisemitic Statements
In the last couple of months, Owens has moved far beyond "Israel-Palestine" in terms of her comments that veer into antisemitism. For example, she has suggested multiple times that the "Jewish lobby" killed JFK, defended the Nazis explicitly (i.e. "the Germans were the ones being ethnically cleansed"), doubting the experiments of Dr. Josef Mangele and denouncing them as propaganda, and most recently declaring that anyone that criticizes Israel needs to fear getting killed. This is after many other extreme comments that blatantly veer into antisemitism.
Since I have sources for all of the above, I would like to put these in the article. However, I don't think that "Israel-Palestine" is an appropriate place to do so as this is more in the realm of Neo-Nazi rhetoric and should have it's own section with a title like "accusations of anti-semitism." If anyone opposes this please post here, otherwise I will create the section in the coming days. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 08:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I second this. Her statements about USSR being part of the “Jewish cabal”, that mainstream Judaism is a “pedophile-centric religion that believes in demons”, her whole speech about “Frankists” who kill babies to bake matzos — it’s all much more extreme than anything that is currently reflected here. Please do add the section. Amayorov (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Student Loan
Can we verify that as reason for leaving. From White Plains to Stamford and with family successfully bringing lawsuits, financial trouble does not ring true. 2603:8001:6A44:C0DE:788B:7E3D:721:60B3 (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Kamala Harris
Her claims to being part black and Kamala’s book 2605:59C8:62FB:910:10FB:55B4:EE4B:93AD (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- In recent Shows (nearly all censored on You Tube at least in Germany) Owens says, Harris has a completely different Family background.
- Biography articles of living people
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Low-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class Connecticut articles
- Low-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
- Low-importance politics articles
- B-Class American politics articles
- Low-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
- B-Class Internet culture articles
- Low-importance Internet culture articles
- WikiProject Internet culture articles
- Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report