Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:59, 17 June 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: Politics and Government 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 supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). 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. [REDACTED] Women in Red [REDACTED] 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. [REDACTED] African diaspora Mid‑importance [REDACTED] 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 (39 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 10,449 10,449 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 22,123 BLEXIT Foundation 5,843 5,843 Product promotion 4,893 4,893 Post-Daily Wire career 321 321 Political views 7,726 99,196 Anti-black racism and Black Lives Matter 15,197 15,197 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 2,225 2,225 Welfare 477 477 Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany 9,370 9,370 Support of Kanye West 7,346 7,346 Jews and Judaism 12,342 12,342 Israel and Palestine 3,747 3,747 COVID-19 pandemic and vaccination 15,401 15,401 Russia and Ukraine 5,982 5,982 Legal issues 20 7,652 Kimberly Klacik lawsuit 4,870 4,870 Other 2,762 2,762 Controversies 20 20,013 Dispute with family of Mollie Tibbetts 2,986 2,986 Promotion of conspiracy theories 4,403 4,403 Mention in shooters' manifestos 6,197 6,197 Planned 2024 Australasian tour 6,407 6,407 Personal life 4,902 4,902 Bibliography 687 687 Filmography 1,283 1,283 Notes 24 24 References 28 28 Further reading 290 290 External links 2,718 2,718 Total 183,206 183,206

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)

Incidentally, I did a Google News search for the following, "Candace Owens" "far-right" and "Candace Owens" conservative. The number of hits was 2,770 vs 17,700. While this doesn't prove how she is commonly labeled, it does show that the association with her name and "conservative" occurs far more often than her name and "far-right", a ratio of over 6 to 1. Springee (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Imagine if we allowed Google trends determine how Misplaced Pages should shape political articles when it comes to ideology. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

When it comes to applying value-laden labels we need to decide if they are near universally applied or only in some sources. While not definitive, a search such as the one I did does provide some idea of the relative usage of of various labels. It's far better than just relying on a combination of editor opinion and searches for sources that contain the keywords we wish to see in the article. Springee (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

As I previously said, calling the GAL/TAN scale 'POV' shows that you don't understand political science. And that is ok. I guess we will need more people participating in this section to decide on the label. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 12:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Where did I call it POV? I called it subjective, which it is. Can you clearly define when someone transitions from "centrist" to "right" or "right" to "far-right"? Also, as a general rule, it's best to use article talk pages to discuss content, not what knowledge you feel other editors do/don't have. Please review wp:FOC. Springee (talk) 12:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

There is a huge gap between conservatism and the far-right. Labelling someone simply as conservative, when their positions are clearly radical in terms of human rights, reproductive rights or even foreign policy, then we are kind of misleading readers. Like I said, read more about GAL/TAN because you did call it impartial which shows that your understanding of political theory/analysis might be a bit flawed. That is absolutely fine, but repeatedly calling the most used model for the positioning of political ideology as 'POV' shows that you don't understand its purpose. Cheers. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

And now we are falling back on your subjective views of the situation. Where did I call anything, other than your views, "POV"? I referenced wp:IMPARTIAL. Springee (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Gosh NikolaosFanaris (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Did you read wp:IMPARTIAL which is what I referenced? Springee (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Why did you remove content without consensus just now? NikolaosFanaris (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOCON. The new additions to a BLP have been disputed. Springee (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe both your edit summaries are misleading. This one removed a quote from Owens where she refers to a sovereign nation (Ukraine) as "a thing that did not exist until 1989" - in that way she openly justified Putin's invasion through her show and of course on Twitter. Isn't that her view on the war? The second edit removed a quote by Owens where she calls Disney's executives child groomers and paedophiles. It's vandalism and I recommend you take a few steps back here and rethink your approach. Please read wp:IMPARTIAL in case you are not familiar with WP. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

We should summarize her position, not present a quote without it's larger context and let the reader guess what she meant or in what context she used the quoted text. To say that quote=Putin's war is justified is a big logical leap. Even to claim that is her view on the war is a huge leap. The second edit is an example of summarizing. We are not required to use exact quotes. Using IMPARTIAL language is actually preferred. Accusing editors of vandalism is a CIVIL issue. Springee (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

"Let the reader guess what she meant", and then proceeds to delete her quotes calling them POV. Please read wp:IMPARTIAL. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• There is nothing Conservative in her recent stance. We should honor the meaning and significance of conservative views by keeping them clearly differentiated from Far-right views such as hers. SPECIFICO talk 16:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The only problem with your suggestion is that more sources describe her as a conservative than as far-right according to Springee. As such, we should still call her a conservative and not far-right. X-Editor (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Look at the most recent sources -- from the past 2 years. There's no doubt, as the article details, that she once supported conservative values and views and is now stark raving alt-right right-wing far-right in her positions. What do you see in the last 2 years and the past one year? SPECIFICO talk 18:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

X-Editor, you do realize that she can be conservative, alt-right, and far-right at the same time? She just happens to be toward the far end of the right side of the left-right political spectrum, so that's why she is labeled as far-right.

Calling her conservative is a duh, vague, uninformative label. We strive for accuracy when possible, and plenty of RS do that for us. Here's a parallelism. Imagine labeling her a human. Duh! Calling her a female is much more informative. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Allow me to add that recent academic publications, examining the American ultraconservative sphere on Twitter and other platforms, seem to perceive Owens as a leading far-right voice. I added two of those, but they were removed by Springee as "cite overkill"(!) - IMO those were the most reliable sources so far in the whole article, backing both Owens' far-right ideology and her role as an influencer. For more: Information, Communication & Society and Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The problem is those sources are behind a pay wall so we can't verify if they say what you claim. Additionally most sources call her conservative. Finally there is the issue of LABEL. Springee (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Others have explained to you that the paywall is not a reason to remove citations (especially academic ones) - you are an experienced user, I guess by now you already know that right? Have you even tried googling those two articles? ] Please read Misplaced Pages:POV. Most of your edits attempt to hide notable information. The removal of reliable academic papers is unacceptable. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

(ec)@Springee:Do you agree we should use the most recent high quality sources, the recency being critical due to Owens' recent change in her views on many issues? Let's settle that procedural or methodological question before we look at individual sources and proposed changes to article text. SPECIFICO talk 14:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The problem with the pay wall sources is we don't know if they actually support what NF claims. I'm certainly not inclined to assume they do. It's not uncommon for an editor who is pushing a LABEL to take a statement from a RS that says, for example, "Owens is accused of expressing far right claims" and turn it into "Owens is far right" in wiki voice. Their recent restoration of disputed edits without clear consensus further illustrates why the 3RRN discussion is needed. Springee (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I provided PDF files for both publications - have you had a look or will you just keep pushing your unnecessary POV? NikolaosFanaris (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@NikolaosFanaris: @Springee: I have accessed the two sources. The first one is a fictitious reference; it mentions Candace Owens once, and does not support what NikolaosFanaris claims it supports: In fact, channels devoted to Trump comprise the third-biggest community in the network. They include channels that post Trump’s statements or tweets (it is unclear if any of these are officially affiliated with him or the White House) and personal channels of his active supporters such as Candace Owens.. The second one does somewhat support the label; Owens is mentioned in passing amongst a list of "far right influencers": Since this research was first conducted (2017), platforms have increasingly adopted such an approach, as reflected in the decision by Twitter to ban far right influencers, such as Tommy Robinson in 2018, and Candace Owens and Katie Hopkins in 2020. Endwise (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Endwise: She is perceived by the authors as a far-right influencer within far-right networks on Telegram whilst her overall presence on the platform is often discussed by far-right extremists. How is it a fictitious reference when her account appears in the research as an actual far-right influencer? The second reference CLEARLY highlights her as a far-right influencer. Therefore, somewhat is another understatement. Please, retract your statement immediately. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

It actually specifically separates her from far-right accounts. It has many divisions of communities, and the "Donald Trump-related" community is specifically separated from the far-right communities. Much like it does for the e.g. "Hong Kong pro-democracy movement" community. In fact it describes this as one of the only mainstream communities in the network it was looking at. It is generally beneficial to read the sources you cite before citing them. Endwise (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Here you go, another publication labelling CO as an alt-right (technically the same as far-right) figure . The list goes on and on - recent academic journals avoid referring to her as a conservative voice because of her extremist views. That should be clear by now. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Should we use most recent RS given the change in her views?

I asked this about 5 posts up in the preceding thread and I am disappointed to see nobody respond. Again, this is without reference to any particular source or content. I am only concerned with how we can avoid blending sources that reflect two different stages in the evolution of her thought and messaging. SPECIFICO talk 15:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• Yes* NikolaosFanaris (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• No Even a cursory look at Google News shows that most sources still describe her as a conservative or republican. X-Editor (talk) 03:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• No if the intent of the question is to ask if we should look at a few recent mentions to apply a value-laden label to the opening sentence of a BLP in Wiki-voice. As a more general question, only to some extent. First, let's ignore which labels current vs older sources are using and just consider if we should give more weight to newer sources. In general I would say yes. However, more weight is not the same as 100%. Let's suppose we have 10 years of history and in the last two the terms seem to have changed. Is that a long term change or just RECENT. Also, are those recent sources really strong? One of the issues with NF's arguments above is the view that academic sources are automatically stronger than others. That really depends. If we are talking about a journal review paper describing the state of some technology art vs say a news story on the same subject, yes, teh journal paper is likely better. However, what if we were talking about say a profile of Owens in a mainstream media source vs an academic paper published in a journal with limited impact factor that mentioned Owens only as part of a group for some claim in the paper. No, in that case the academic source isn't going to be as strong. In part because the hypothetical academic source provides no justification for the label/classification. We don't have the details to really dive into things. This is why the context of how the material was presented does matter. As a non-political example of this, take the Ford Pinto fires. The common knowledge of the Pinto as a car that caught fire with even a minor rear impact and where Ford decided to pay off the victims rather than fix the problem really took hold in popular understanding. That understanding was so strong that business school papers would often mention it as fact. While it may have been a useful illustrative example, it was largely not true. If those papers had actually researched the subject vs just repeat what is "known" they probably would not have made those claims. Still, since those claims were in "academic" papers for a long time editors tried to use them as citations in the Ford Pinto article. They are exactly the sort of "academic" citations we shouldn't use because later researched aimed specifically at the topic found them to be almost entirely incorrect. The point to that side story is we need to be very careful about assuming that facts that are mentioned/assumed in a single sentence sort of reference should be treated as "academic proof". Additionally, when it comes to contentious labels we need more substantial references, not single sentence mentions, even if they are in academic papers. Springee (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• Nuance is needed. The "Ideology" section in the body is quite short, and expanding it seems reasonable. That could involve more focus on chronology, especially if her views have verifiably continued to evolve in the last two years. The lead summarizes the body, so this expansion might inform whether an attributed (not in Wikivoice, obviously) description of alt-right or far-right would be warranted somewhere in the lead as well. Its proposed insertion in Wikivoice in the first sentence is a non-starter. VQuakr (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  We describe many far and alt- right individuals as such in Wikivoice in their leads on varios pages. SPECIFICO talk 17:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Mmmkay. What does the policy say? Stating that violations of the policy exist isn't a good counter argument. VQuakr (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

On the contrary. Please read that policy section. It says not to misstate in either over- or under- (to the extent the one dimensional model applies) state the weight of well-sourced content. SPECIFICO talk 17:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

It does say that; then what does it go on to say? Please read that policy section.

Moving on from the silly sniping: I suspect that once the body is expanded there will be adequate coverage in the body to warrant mention in the lead, in the format of "Writing in source X, notable commentator Y characterized Owens's views as Z" that avoids our applying contentious labels in Wikivoice. VQuakr (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to inform you that "contentious" does not hinge on whether 2 or 3 editors briefly complain about it on the talk page. SPECIFICO talk 19:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to inform you that you're not the arbiter of whether others' opinions are valid. BLP requires us to edit with greatest care. This isn't a particularly close call, and the concepts I've briefly outlined (lead follows body; first sentence reserved for definition of subject; attribute labels instead of presenting as fact in Wikivoice) are SOP. VQuakr (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Moon Landing

Why is her view on the moon landing under the "controversies" section? Perhaps it would be better suited in the views/beliefs section? I propose we move it or delete it altogether. Dswitz10734 (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I suspect it's there because it's one of her controversial views. We should keep it, no matter where it's located. Her scientific illiteracy is rather shocking. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Is this really her view or is she just trolling on Twitter? The cited source is an Op-Ed in the Washington Examiner. Probably best to remove this. Springee (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems accurate (there are two tweets), especially since it is documented by a source that's ideologically friendly to her. Keep it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Washington Examiner is not a great source. I agree that it should be removed unless better sourcing is available. This is what the BLP policy directs us to do. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Then Independent is reliable - . Houston Press - dunno about that . But we have Owens' actual Tweets, so I don't see that it's an issue. Black Kite (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Well yeah anyone can go see the actual tweets for themselves, but wouldn’t we need a RS documenting them before we wrote about it here? Mr Ernie (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Depends how you interpret WP:ABOUTSELF. But the Independent is reliable, even if the Houston local paper isn't. Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

We need secondary sources to establish WP:WEIGHT, but it sounds like those exist. VQuakr (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

We have several secondary sources mentioning the tweet (actually two tweets), so we're good. If the Examiner were making a controversial, fringe promotional, statement (as they often do), I'd be wary of using them, but they aren't at all. On the contrary, they are scolding their ideological ally and promoting the mainstream, factual, view of the moon landing. This makes them an excellent source in this case, and we are supposed to judge usage on a case-by-case basis. The Examiner passes with flying colors this time if we actually read it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

This still looks like she was trolling. Did any of these sources actually reach out and ask her about this? I'm not impressed with any of the sources we have. This all comes off as very gossipy and substance free. Springee (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

No RS indicate she was trolling. Read both tweets. Multiple sources took her seriously, so we must do the same. The only thing that could change the narrative would be her later denial and statement that she was actually trolling, but that didn't happen and wouldn't make sense as she really is that scientifically ignorant. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

2 of the 3 sources are opinion articles. The third seems to be more about Ted Cruze but I haven't signed up to read the thing. None of these are very good sources and no, we don't have to assume her comments were meant to be serious if common sense suggests they might not be. Did any of these sources reach out to her for comment or verify her intent? Springee (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Look at who tweeted that nonsense! Common sense tells us she was serious in her moon landing denialism. Seriously. It was Candace speaking, so what else could one expect? This is par for the course for her. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

It's a BLP. That means we err on the side of not including claims gossipy claims that may not be true. None of those sources bothered to do something basic like reaching out for comment to verify this was something she actually believed vs something she was just having fun with. If the sources can't be bothered to do even basic journalistic due diligence we shouldn't treat it as DUE content regardless of how we feel about the subject. Springee (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

That's OR thinking and none of our business. We document what RS say, and even a right-wing source took her VERY seriously. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

No, OR would be adding "Owens made the tweet in jest" to the article. Saying as much here to explain why this content is undue is not. Per ONUS we are not required to include this just because it passes a bare level of verifiability. Springee (talk) 01:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Valjean. We are not mind readers, we say what sources say. I don't think we should be asking for consensus on something that there isn't a source or citation for, either...DN (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

But that fails to establish WEIGHT. If something goes into the article it must be WP:V. Just because we can verify she made those tweets doesn't mean we have to include them. This is especially true since the sourcing in this case is two op-eds and a commentary article. Two of the three mention the tweet as background context. None reached out to Owens for comment. Again, BLP so err on the side of caution. If there is doubt, leave it out. Springee (talk) 02:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

This is something she said herself on twitter, right? How much weight does that usually have in an article like this? Also, for example, look at the lede. In recent years, Owens has promoted several conspiracy theories, mostly through her social media profiles, and expressed anti-lockdown views and anti-vaccination opinions during the COVID-19 pandemic. The amount of controversies she has spoken on take up about a third of the article. I'm not against adding some less controversial stuff as soon as she gives us something, but the text in place does not violate BLP IMO. It's very cut and dry...

In February 2022, Owens tweeted that "Now for some light-hearted fun. What's the one 'conspiracy theory' that no matter what anyone says you believe is true. Mine is that the moon landing in 1969 was completely faked. Just nothing about it makes sense. Especially NASA 'accidentally erasing' the original footage."

That's about par for the course in the section it's located in...DN (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

No one doubts she said it. What I question is if she was trolling/joking or really meant it. Her "light-hearted fun" comment does suggest she could be putting people on. How hard would it have been to reach out to her to ask, "were you kidding". Given the quality of the sources that covered this tweet and the context (only one was actually about the tweet and that was an OpEd in a source that people say is questionable) how can we say that establishes sufficient WEIGHT to include this claim. How does it hurt us to leave it out? Answer, it doesn't so leave it out. I suspect a lot of why there are so many "controversies" is because writers find them to be easy, click generating stories. Why do we as editors feel it is important to include so many seems to be a better question. Is this supposed to be an encyclopedia or a gossip/politics column? Springee (talk) 03:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Presumably nobody reached out to confirm it because she's a notable conspiracy theorist? And she called it her 'conspiracy theory' that no matter what anyone says you believe is true? There's really no room for the doubt you're trying to cast. ––FormalDude talk 04:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Well that and the sources are Op-Ed/political commentary bits from smaller news outlets. That speaks against weight for inclusion. Yes, there is room for doubt and certainly room to say this doesn't have weight for inclusion. Springee (talk) 04:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

There really is no room for doubt, even though she frames it in a light-hearted way. She doesn't just say she believes the conspiracy theory. No, she says that she believes this conspiracy theory is true "no matter what anyone says". In her next tweet she doubles down and adds more to confirm she's serious (see below):

"In February 2022, Owens tweeted that "Now for some light-hearted fun. What's the one 'conspiracy theory' that no matter what anyone says you believe is true. Mine is that the moon landing in 1969 was completely faked. Just nothing about it makes sense. Especially NASA 'accidentally erasing' the original footage." "The biggest thing for me is the fuel tank size, plus the live broadcast with audio from the moon. In 1969. I just cannot."

The Washington Examiner is only unusable when it does what it typically does, which is to push right-wing nonsense. (WP:RS/P does not forbid all use.) In this case, we have them scolding their own ally, and they explain why what she's saying is so stupid, so we should not only use them as a source, we should quote them for context because merely providing her tweet, without any RS context, isn't very informative:

"In February 2022, Owens tweeted: "Now for some light-hearted fun. What's the one 'conspiracy theory' that no matter what anyone says you believe is true. Mine is that the moon landing in 1969 was completely faked. Just nothing about it makes sense. Especially NASA 'accidentally erasing' the original footage." Her next tweet confirmed her belief in the conspiracy theory: "The biggest thing for me is the fuel tank size, plus the live broadcast with audio from the moon. In 1969. I just cannot." Mark Whittington, of the conservative Washington Examiner, criticized her for pushing the moon landing hoax conspiracy theory: "Sorry, Candace Owens, but men really did walk on the moon." After calling her out, he proceeded to explain the facts about the 1969 moon landing.

How about that better developed and attributed version? There is no room for doubt, and it is an OR and NPOV violation to go against what RS and Owens actually say. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

No one is talking about OR. We are talking about DUE. Springee (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I was. IMO, casting doubt without citations, or sources with her "saying it was a joke" is akin to OR. IMO. DN (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Per the opening of OR, "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." Springee (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

My mentions of OR were in the same sense as done by DN. It's true that OR only applies to article content and not to talk pages, but the only kind of OR allowed on talk pages is OR that seeks to harmonize with and further the goals of PAG, not undermine them and contradict them. Such OR is disruptive and can do all kinds of bad things, such as furthering fringe POV, whitewashing, forbidden advocacy, NPOV violations, SYNTH violations, etc. When you substitute your own mental gymnastics (your own OR) for what RS say, especially when it goes directly against what RS say, then you're not acting as a good wikipedian. Don't do such things. The principle behind SYNTH violations is being violated because you are coming to a contrary conclusion than RS, and worse yet, you want to use your OR thinking to guide your creation of article content. This pattern of whitewashing right-wing/conservative content/people/sources of anything critical or negative needs to stop. That's how Trump creates his "alternative facts". It's a really annoying type of wikilawyering. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I think you are missing the big picture. I'm saying this isn't DUE. Let's start with the assumption that Owens is not trolling/etc. Do we have any good sources? No. We have two OpEds and a commentary article from a political source that mentions this tweet in context of something Ted Cruze said. The fact that her sincerity can be questioned based on the contents of the tweet and that none of the sources bothered to reach out for further comment makes it that much easier to say this content is noise. This isn't like climate change or COVID where we have multiple examples of comments that can be used to illustrate her views. We have just two tweets with very limited coverage. It isn't DUE for inclusion. That she is controversial is no reason to turn her BLP into a Daily Kos article. Springee (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion First it's not clear she was being serious vs just having fun. Note her opening statement about "Now for some light-hearted fun." An OpEd and a commentary article mentioned this in context of a comment by Ted Cruze. Our other source is an OpEd article explaining the moon landing was real. Are we also supposed to assume tucker Carlson really wants to go by them/their because his Twitter profile says so? This is the sort of low quality stuff we shouldn't put into BLP articles. It certainly isn't good encyclopedic content that would survive the 10YEAR test. Springee (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support inclusion Her opinions on this subject were reported in newspapers, which does suggest notability, and it is one part of her broader support for conspiracy theories in general. My only concern is, does this need to be in its own heading? Why not just create a "conspiracy theories" heading, and then include one sentence underneath that heading mentioning this specific conspiracy theory? Funtoedit1212 (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Owens, Candace (May 14, 2017). "Candace Owens tweet about moon landing". Twitter. Retrieved June 8, 2022.
2. ^ Owens, Candace (May 14, 2017). "Candace Owens follow-up tweet about moon landing". Twitter. Retrieved June 8, 2022.
3. "Candace Owens declares that 'the moon landing in 1969 was completely faked'". DeadState.org. January 28, 2022. Retrieved June 8, 2022.
4. Whittington, Mark (2022-02-08). "Sorry, Candace Owens, but men really did walk on the moon". Washington Examiner. Retrieved 2022-04-15.
5. Kilander, Gustaf (February 2, 2022). "Ted Cruz mocked for trolling tweet promoting Candace Owens for Supreme Court". The Independent. Retrieved June 8, 2022.

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• 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
• 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