This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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). Connecticut Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. 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. Journalism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. 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. Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance). 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 Wikipedia. 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. 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 Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women in Red This article was created or improved as part of the Women in Red project. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red African diaspora Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. 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. Internet culture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Her most recent podcast episode dove further into her thoughts on Charlie Kirk's murder and connections, etc. Should this be started as a section under "Controversies" that can be added to as it evolves? There are only two sources discussing it at the moment that are under WP:RSP. However this is timely and likely will be unfolding rapidly over the coming weeks. ^{[1] [2]}

^🥑GUACPOCALYPSE^🥑 22:10, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given WP:NYPOST and WP:TIMESOFINDIA, I wouldn't add it without better sources than these two. -- Pemilligan (talk) 22:56, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I will wait for a few better sources. Do you think the topic is worth adding? ^🥑GUACPOCALYPSE^🥑 15:00, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That will depend on the coverage it gets. -- Pemilligan (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Following up here now that is has been almost 2 months into Candace's investigation into this topic on her podcast. There are now several more references available so I will be adding this to that section of her page. I am fairly new to Wikipedia so I welcome suggestions, corrections, etc. to this subsection I am adding. Thanks editors! ^🥑GUACPOCALYPSE^🥑 16:27, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the subsection: Investigation into the Death of Charlie Kirk ^🥑GUACPOCALYPSE^🥑 16:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the first two sentences to be more concise; linking to Assassination of Charlie Kirk should provide all the context that is needed. I removed the New York Post reference as WP:NYPOST still applies. I also made some minor adjustments to reference details, quote marks and date formats. There may or may not be other issues like WP:UNDUE but I'll leave them to others. -- Pemilligan (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your edits, thank you for taking the time. ^🥑GUACPOCALYPSE^🥑 17:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From the article: “Owens served as the communications director for the conservative advocacy group Turning Point USA from 2017 and 2019.”

Should that be “between 2017 and 2019”, or “from 2017 to 2019”, or does it mean something else entirely? Because as written now, it doesn't seem to make sense. -- CRConrad (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it makes sense as it is. ^🥑GUACPOCALYPSE^🥑 15:59, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's poor grammar to write from 2017 and 2019. -- Pemilligan (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Also, it's not clear from the source or from the body of the article that the communication director position began in 2017. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:46, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was just typing that, too. -- Pemilligan (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The two choices seem equivalent. I'm more inclined toward the simpler change, from 2017 to 2019.

I see another issue looking at the body of the article: it says she was came in as director of urban engagement in 2017 and went out as communications director in 2019, not supporting that she had the latter title from 2017.

And a minor point: the citation doesn't need to be used in the lead since this is uncontroversial information summarized from the body with citations there. -- Pemilligan (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine it was a non-native speaker whose native language parses it that way. Metallurgist (talk) 20:32, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting someone promotes conspiracy theories carries strong negative connotations, often suggesting the person is irrational, gullible, or even dangerous. When such a claim is untrue or exaggerated, it can seriously harm the individual's personal relationships, professional credibility, and public image. Making false or misleading statements that damage a person's reputation in this way constitutes defamation, which is not only ethically wrong but also legally actionable in many jurisdictions. 2601:2C7:8F00:4F00:41E9:E2B:6F5C:E73F (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Not done Reliable sources do indeed show that she has promoted multiple conspiracy theories. Black Kite (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Candace herself has said multiple times that she believes in "conspiracy theories". Even if she is saying it jokingly, I don't think it's necessarily considered a negative perspective in 2025. ^🥑GUACPOCALYPSE^🥑 19:53, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its mixed. There is a subculture of being proud of it. I wonder if there is an article on the idea of turning a negative stereotype into a badge of honor. Like the n word is probably the premier example. But in this case, if she straight up says it, then thats pretty uncontroversial. Might be worth adding that attribution tho. Metallurgist (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The section "Haim Braverman incident" is WP:NOTNEWS / unnotable and weakly sourced.

We don't have to document every death threat she receives 2A02:810D:AE1C:C800:E93A:99E7:65C7:FB3A (talk) 02:14, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Day Creature (talk) 03:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2025-10-15/australias-highest-court-rejects-candace-owens-visa-challenge

Piñanana (talk) 04:15, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Candace_Owens&curid=55832489&diff=1318026215&oldid=1317878488 This edit to change longstanding content should be reverted 2A02:810D:AE1C:C800:111C:4222:F876:5D21 (talk) 15:31, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 15:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the section Planned 2024 Australasian tour, opening sentence

   In late August 2024, Owens announced that plans for a speaking tour of five Australian cities and the New Zealand city of Auckland in November 2024.

delete that, giving

   In late August 2024, Owens announced plans for a speaking tour of five Australian cities and the New Zealand city of Auckland in November 2024. 

 (As it stands, it's actually a sentence-fragment.) ~2025-32010-21 (talk) 01:01, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done GMG^talk 12:38, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change "Gendamarie" to "Gendarmerie" in the "Charlie Kirk Assassination" section. (I agree her misspelling is funny, but should not be reflected in the article text.) Revert "right" to "far-right" in lede (this recent edit is ambiguous, unsupported by the well-referenced body text in the "political views" section, runs counter to consensus previously made on this talk page, and links to the wrong page anyways). ~2025-35812-49 (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done, actually I've remved that section completely as it was unsourced. Black Kite (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am reporting multiple violations of the [[WP:BLP]] policy in this article. Specifically, the following areas contain negative, contentious claims that are completely unsourced or poorly sourced, for example, the sentence, "She has promoted numerous conspiracy theories, especially those with antisemitic, anti-Black, anti-French, anti-trans or anti-intellectual themes.", regarding her political views in the introductory paragraph uses biased, non-neutral language and is not backed by a reliable source or any sources/citations whatsoever. The whole Introductory paragraph and large swathes of the article are unsourced and uses non-neutral politically inflammatory language.

Per policy, unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. I am requesting that these sections be cleaned up or removed to bring the article into compliance with Wikipedia's legal and editorial standards. ~~~~

Marco Kotze Araujo (talk) 13:40, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Not done. Material in the lead paragraph does not require sourcing as long as it is sourced in the body of the article (from WP:LEAD A lead section should be carefully sourced as appropriate, although it is common for citations to appear in the body and not the lead.) In this case, there are so many citations covering that material in the body of the article that it would mean the lead paragraph becoming unreadable. Which leads to the point that the "negative contentious claims" are in fact sourced in the body of the article. If you find any specific claims that you believe to be unsourced, please post again pointing out exactly where they are. Thank you, Black Kite (talk) 14:17, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Black Kite: I removed anti-French since I can't find anything directly making that claim. The grounds for "anti-intellectual" seem fairly thin as well. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 14:40, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ChildrenWillListen Yeah, I presume that refers to the Macron legal issues; it is obviously a conspiracy theory but it's not technically an anti-French one, is it? (I note it's mentioned twice in separate paragraphs, it could probably be removed from one of them). To be honest the laundry list of conspiracy theories could probably be removed anyway and replaced with "on a wide range of subjects" or something like that; it doesn't even mention the anti-vax / climate change / Charlie Kirk stuff which she's still banging on about... Black Kite (talk) 14:51, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I wouldn't call it anti-French. At first glance it just looks like some anti-trans tirade, not necessarily because of some anti-French sentiment or anything else. Again, that's why it's best to include such labels only when reliable sources consistently use them. I support your changes to the lede. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 15:26, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, I would like to highlight that after reading the article, I have seen that it is written in a non-neutral way, that has some wild claims: Namely the 'Anti-Black' label, I find, is false(to put it mildly), as she her Herself is an African American, and that just because she is critical of BLM does not mean she is not against the African race. I would also point out that many of the 'citations' do not come from official or journalist sites, and that there is barely any use of Citations around the controversial claims. Marco Kotze Araujo (talk) 17:34, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apologies for grammatical errors* Marco Kotze Araujo (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I've changed that sentence. Whilst she has promoted dozens of false conspiracy theories, they are now dealt with individually in the body of the article and the lead has citations to this. Black Kite (talk) 17:43, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you very much, the Article is edited quite well and in a fair and neutral tone, I commend the maturity shown in the moderation of the Article. Great Job. Marco Kotze Araujo (talk) 17:47, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“Anti-intellectual” was intended to summarize the anti-vax, climate change and moon landing stuff, and any of the other anti-science stuff. I disagree with removing the npov summary from the lead, and I definitely disagree with doing it on behalf of one inexperienced editor. It is not our job to present subjects in the best possible, rose-colored light. (I didn’t write the anti-French one) Mikewem (talk) 18:53, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed with it, though. To be honest, that list could have been a dozen items long, such is Owens' predilection for talking utter nonsense. Also, the cites in the lead para now lead readers to secondary sources that explain exactly what she is all about. Black Kite (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikewem Actually, it is the job of ALL EDITORS to portray it in THE BEST POSIBLE LIGHT, not to create some DREAMT-UP UNDER-SOURCED FANTASY ESSAY which was REMOVED DUE TO LACK OF PROOF. Our job is to be FAIR AND IMPARTIAL, THAT IS THE GOLD STANDARD OF WIKIPEDIA Marco Kotze Araujo (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend reading WP:SHOUT Mikewem (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikewem I am not shouting, I am highlighting areas of emphasis Marco Kotze Araujo (talk) 22:00, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your 'emphasis' ("Actually, it is the job of ALL EDITORS to portray it in THE BEST POSIBLE LIGHT") is entirely at odds with Wikipedia policy. We follow what the sources cited have to say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump Most of the cited sources are unofficial or unreliable....read them Marco Kotze Araujo (talk) 09:21, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Wikipedia:Reliable sources? I suspect not, if you think that being 'unofficial' is a criteria by which we reject sources. That would be absurd. As for 'unreliable', you will have to be more specific. Name the sources you don't consider meet our criteria, and give us an explanation as to why. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:58, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump

Unreliable sources in Article:

1. South China Morning Post(SCMP), owned by Jack Ma's Alibaba Group, which has a WELL-DOCUMENTED history of SELF-CENSORSHIP to avoid trouble with the CCP.

2. Nashville-based The Tennisean, owned by USA TODAY Network (Gannett), has faced massive outcry for defamation, for example In June 2020, the paper faced national backlash after publishing a full-page advertisement from a fringe religious group claiming "Islam is going to detonate a nuclear device" in Nashville. The ad was widely condemned as "horrific and indefensible," leading the paper to fire its advertising sales manager and implement stricter vetting processes for all future paid content.......

3. Blackpast.org, founded by Dr. Quintard Taylor (1948–2025). His daughter, Jamila Taylor, is a prominent DEMOCRAT politician currently serving as a member of the Washington State House of Representatives, THEREFORE the Organisational Integrity and Impartiality is called into dispute on the topic of providing 'objective' information on CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS....... Not to mention Dr. Taylor was a member of Alpha Phi Alpha and Sigma Pi Phi, organizations that have historically played significant roles in the leadership of the Civil Rights Movement and the Democratic political landscape, groups which Owens has VOCALLY criticized, therefore leading to concerns of bias.

4. NBC news with citations duplicating the same article(https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/youtube-tested-trump-approved-how-candace-owens-suddenly-became-loudest-n885166) 5+ times on unrelated Sections. Edited George Zimmerman Emergency Services Call (2012): NBC faced intense backlash and a defamation lawsuit after airing an edited version of an emergency services call that made Zimmerman's actions appear more racially motivated than the full recording suggested. Stifling the Harvey Weinstein Story: Investigative journalist Ronan Farrow alleged that NBC executives blocked his exposé on Harvey Weinstein’s sexual misconduct to protect their own interests and possibly conceal allegations against Matt Lauer. NBC's cable affiliate, MSNBC, has faced longstanding criticism from conservative groups for "left-leaning" bias, particularly during the 2008 and 2012 elections. Conversely, some liberal viewers have criticized the network for not being aggressive enough in its coverage of Donald Trump. Olympic Coverage (2024): The network's broadcast of the Paris 2024 Olympics opening ceremony faced backlash from some viewers who found certain segments—such as a performance featuring drag queens—to be offensive or culturally insensitive.

5. BuzzFeed, Inc. BuzzFeed states in its editorial guide that "we firmly believe that for a number of issues, including civil rights, women's rights, anti-racism, and LGBT equality, there are not two sides."[165] The Week's correspondent Ryan Cooper and American Enterprise Institute's senior fellow Timothy P. Carney at the Washington Examiner raised questions about whether BuzzFeed undermines its credibility by taking sides on political issues.[166][167] In June 2015, BuzzFeed and websites like the Huffington Post and Mashable temporarily changed the theme of their social media avatars to rainbow colors to celebrate same-sex marriage being ruled constitutional in the United States.[168]

In June 2016, the left-leaning media watchdog Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting found that in 100 BuzzFeed stories about Barack Obama, 65 were positive, 34 were neutral, and one was critical. The report called BuzzFeed's coverage of Obama "creepy" and "almost uniformly uncritical and often sycophantic."[169] BuzzFeed has partnered with Obama on a get-out-the-vote campaign.[170] During the same month, BuzzFeed cancelled an advertising agreement with the Republican National Committee over what BuzzFeed founder Jonah Peretti called "offensive remarks" made by Donald Trump. Peretti said: "We certainly don't like to turn away revenue that funds all the important work we do across the company. However, in some cases we must make business exceptions: we don't run cigarette ads because they are hazardous to our health, and we won't accept Trump ads for the exact same reason."[171]

In January 2017, BuzzFeed released what became known as the "Steele dossier", an uncorroborated private intelligence report that alleges several salacious accusations of Trump. Margaret Sullivan at The Washington Post wrote of the release: "It's a bad idea, and always has been, to publish unverified smears."[172] David Graham at The Atlantic called it "an abdication of the basic responsibility of journalism."[173] NBC's Chuck Todd called the release of the document "fake news".[174] Ben Smith defended the decision to release the document from accusations that it was done out of partisanship, arguing that the dossier is of "obvious central public importance."[175]

6. Salon.com, An article called "Deadly Immunity" written by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. appeared in Salon and simultaneously in the July 14, 2005 issue of Rolling Stone.[44] The article focused on the 2000 Simpsonwood CDC conference and claimed that thimerosal-containing vaccines caused autism,[45][46] The article was retracted by Salon on January 16, 2011, in response to criticism.[47]

In March 2016, while American tourist Otto Warmbier was imprisoned in North Korea for allegedly trying to steal a propaganda poster there, the site posted an article about him headed: "This might be America's biggest idiot frat boy: Meet the UVa student who thought he could pull a prank in North Korea."[48] After Warmbier's death, the article was removed.[49][50] In September 2015, Salon published an article written by Todd Nickerson, moderator of Virtuous Pedophiles, about his experiences with being a non-offending pedophile, titled: "I'm a pedophile, but not a monster."[51] This caused controversy at the time, with some commentators accusing it of being "pro-pedophile" (in the sense of being pro-child sexual abuse).[52][53] This article and a follow-up[54] were deleted in early 2017. Some saw a connection between their removal and the controversy surrounding Milo Yiannopoulos's remarks on child sexual abuse that emerged in February 2017,[52] although Salon Media Group CEO and Salon acting editor-in-chief Jordan Hoffner told New York magazine that they had been removed in January 2017 due to "new editorial policies."[52] A third article by sex researcher Debra Soh defending Nickerson's side is still published as of May 2025.[55]

In February 2018, it was noted that Salon was preventing readers using ad blockers from seeing its content. Such users are offered a choice of disabling their blocker, or allowing Salon to run an in-browser script, using the user's resources, to mine Monero, a form of cryptocurrency.[56][57]

On June 23, 2021, Salon published an article with a headline falsely claiming that a bill signed by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis would force Florida students and professors to register their political views with the state of Florida. The article went viral on Twitter and its false claim was promoted by various Democratic commentators, including Florida Commissioner of Agriculture Nikki Fried. In 2022, Salon executive editor Andrew O'Hehir said that Salon had recently concluded that the headline "conveyed a misleading impression of what the Florida law actually said, and did not live up to our editorial standards", and the headline was changed. DeSantis spokesperson Christina Pushaw said that her colleagues had tried unsuccessfully to get Salon to change the headline in 2021, adding: "It's good to see that Salon finally changed its false headline after the pushback they received yesterday. It should have happened much sooner. Better yet, the Salon reporter and editors should have read the legislation before writing an article about it (a good practice for journalism, in general!)."[58][59] Marco Kotze Araujo (talk) 17:09, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. You clearly haven't. And nor have you provided anything substantial illustrating 'bias' in relation to this specific article. Instead, you are cherry-picking material unrelated to the subject of this article in order to demonstrate 'bias' (or rather, copy-pasting it - I do hope you have the copyright-holder's permission to do so?). All sources are 'biased'. We don't reject them for that, since we'd then have no sources at all. And nor do we automatically reject them for occasional errors, or lapses in judgement: particularly if they correct them later. We reject them for a general lack of reliability. If you are incapable of understanding that, or incapable of understanding why we have such a policy, that's your problem, not ours. We've operated that way for decades, and presumably the majority of our readers feel the same way, given the lack of support shown for the many alternative 'online encyclopaedias' that have attempted to work differently. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4, 5, and 6 are just copy pastes of the criticism or controversies section of our articles on the news outlets. The characteristic shouting in 1 and 3 appear to be evidence of at least partial self-authorship for those paragraphs. Strong whiff of WP:CIR here. Mikewem (talk) 18:02, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, look, vague hand-waving is not how this works. Simply just copy-pasting mostly irrelevant material from elsewhere on Wikipedia isn't going to work here. You need to point out exactly what material in this article is in your opinion incorrect or misleading, and why the sources relevant to that material are unreliable (i.e. "sentence X is untrue/misleading/undue, and source Y which cites that material is unreliable because of reason Z"). Thank you, Black Kite (talk) 18:11, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. This TLDR copy-pasting exercise starts off by objecting to the South China Morning Post being used as a source, and goes downhill from there. The only thing the Post is being cited for is Owen's middle name. Possibly not the best source (it's from a rather gossipy article) but I fail to see how asserting that her middle name is 'Amber' could be construed as bias. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:30, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump To point out,(no, im not shouting) THE SAME ARTICLE FOR NBC BEWS HAS BEEN DUPLICATED 8+ TIMES in Unrelared areas of the artie, such as both Polutocal Views and Childhood which I have READ, and if im so wrong, how is it your version was REVERTED on grounds of defamation, scroll up a bjt and see. And please refrain from PERSONAL INSULTS such as 'incapable of understanding'...... Marco Kotze Araujo (talk) 18:49, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the previous version I reporyed was REMOVED so I was right AND WILL NOT argue over one irritant editor who doesnt appreciate the Neutral Point of View edits put forward. Marco Kotze Araujo (talk) 18:55, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to find non-irritant editors elsewhere on the internet. I have explained Wikipedia policy to you, and if you don't like it, feel free not to read our articles at all. We have plenty of readers (globally, from all over the world, and not just confined to the right-leaning US demographic) who clearly appreciate our coverage. We aren't obliged to cater for every random rant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:01, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump Excuse Me? 'right-leanimg US demographic'? ITS RIDICULOUS, im NOT from the USA and WILL NOT tolerate BLATANT political labeling. Marco Kotze Araujo (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from someone who objected to a source on the grounds that it was founded by someone who has a 'DEMOCRAT' daughter, I'll take that as the imbecility it clearly is. I don't care where you are from, I am discussing your own blatant political bias, along with your inability to understand how Wikipedia operates, and why it selects the sources it does. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:20, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the above, it should be noted that I have never edited the Owens article, making facile comments about 'my version' absurd. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:05, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just point out that there was no defamation in the article. The information we removed was either trivial or duplicated elsewhere in the article, and the rest was changed to make it easier to read. Now, unless you're prepared to point out problematic material as I mentioned above ("sentence X is untrue/misleading/undue, and source Y which cites that material is unreliable because of reason Z") I will close this discussion down. Thank you, Black Kite (talk) 19:27, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite Defamation: The article OUTRIGHT called her a "Francophobe" and "Anti-Black Racist", that was my issue, I LEFT THE ISSUE ALONE with my commending of its removal, but certain people decided to drag it out...

In the course of the whole topic discusdion I have been labelled as "US right-winger", "one inexperienced editor", "Incapable of Understanding", and an "Imbecile".... And I close with this: Whether you or anyone LIKES IT OR NOT the Article was edited to remove the defamation as mentioned at the beginming of the Topic WHERE THE DEFAMATION WAS. Marco Kotze Araujo (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The anti-black section racism is still there, and well sourced, though it would perhaps better be called "racism denial" or something similar, I don't know. The word Francophobe was never used, but we changed "anti French conspiracy theories" because they were all about particular French people, as opposed to France as a whole (although in a particularly insane moment, she has claimed that the French army trained Charlie Kirk's assassin). The problem with Owens, as you can see, is that some (indeed, a lot) of the stuff she says is so utterly mad that it's difficult to write about without any negative connotation - I saw a quote recently from someone who said that it's coming so thick and fast now that it's becoming difficult to tell whether she's just posting this stuff for clicks or if she does have some sort of mental health issues. Black Kite (talk) 20:56, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite I sympathise with your statement, i wpuld respectfully like to clarrify my above statement: my use of Francophobe was howw i interpretted the words "anti-french conspiracy theories" as to imply conspiracy theories aimed at the Ethiniocity, such was the level of ambiguity in the statement.

The 'anti black racism' tag is laughable as shee hersf is African American, a more neuteal fitting wording could have been "Denial of existence of systemic racism" as I cant find where she says explicitely that the very concept of racism is a falsehood.

Thank you, for civilly clarrifying the issue with me. Marco Kotze Araujo (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the section could just be titled 'views relating to African Americans'? It is not the nicest title but it is simple and descriptive and not an arguable BLP violation. Or is there sourcing that describes these views in question as, well something? Traumnovelle (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Traumnovelle I totally agree Marco Kotze Araujo (talk) 19:55, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a long section (that definitely contains statements that are stronger than mere “denials of racism”) I would need to double check if there are any positive or even neutral views expressed in that section. Otherwise, it would not be neutral to name solely negative views as “views”. Mikewem (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikewem Thx👍 Marco Kotze Araujo (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its not our job to characterise the statements. If the views are overwhelmingly negative then we should trim it or add more neutral/positive views to counteract it. I don't see how it is neutral to label them as views but labelling them as 'anti-Black racism' (even if they are) is more neutral. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Traumnovelle What do you mean?🤔 Marco Kotze Araujo (talk) 20:13, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can only add views and statements that are reported by reliable sources. The content of the section reflects (or should reflect) the content in RSs. Mikewem (talk) 20:22, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikewem Thx for clarifying, Yes I agree, but can someone else just do something about it, because its very late(half past 10) here in South Africa..... Marco Kotze Araujo (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some notes: the 'anti black racism' tag is laughable as shee hersf is African American is questionable. I don't see how being part of an ethnic group gives one a free pass to be discriminatory towards that group. In any case, if it's a fair summary of reliable secondary sources and/or said secondary sources back that up, the content is valid. The onus is on you to justify the removal of the material, which so far you haven't.

If the views are overwhelmingly negative then we should trim it or add more neutral/positive views to counteract it: if the views are overwhelmingly negative, our job is to make the article reflect that. Doing otherwise is WP:FALSEBALANCE and really just PR work. I find it hard to believe that, just because a subject falls under BLP, that their actions and views be artificially weighed. Our job in BLPs is to avoid undue harm to the subject, not to avoid harm on balance or at all.

Anyways, thanks for avoiding LLM use in your most recent comments. It makes communicating easier and doesn't clog up the page. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 20:23, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should we add a photo of Charlie and/or Erika in that section? There's so much content in her article but not a lot of images. Are we allowed to use ones that are being used elsewhere like Amfest? ^🥑GUACPOCALYPSE^🥑 23:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be nice with a picture of one of them, or both. We are allowed to use pictures that have been uploaded to Commons and that followed the rules for uploading. Lova Falk (talk) 11:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I added two of them! I think the other sections could use photos too. Haven't gotten to those yet. ^🥑GUACPOCALYPSE^🥑 17:19, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is she still initially critical of President Donald Trump What is her current view on Trump? I thought she was crystal clear of her current lack of love for Trump. That lead is so hedged it is amazing. Inayity (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It probably is worth noting that she returned to being critical of Trump. I would think the body addition would go in Conservative activism#Post-Daily Wire career. Do you have any sources that cover this to recommend? Or any proposals of how to phrase it? Mikewem (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why can’t I submit an edit to this article? I am a paid supporter and want to help make the site better but I’m locked out. There is obvious grammatical error in the following sentence which I would have corrected it allowed:

-> She further claimed that evidence supporting her allegation had been deliberately suppressed Jews to protect their interests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dchody (talk • contribs) 02:26, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions to see talk page banners on mobile:

At the top of the talk page, you’ll see an i in a circle then the text “Learn more about this page”. Click on any of that. You’ll see a pop-up titled “About this talk page”. Scroll through those banners til you see:

WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES

The contentious topicsprocedure applies to this article.This article relates to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a contentious topic.

The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:

This page is protected. You must be logged-in to an autoconfirmed or confirmedaccount (usually granted automatically to accounts with 10 edits and an age of 4 days).

• The part you’re interested in is the part that says you need to make 10 edits anywhere on Wikipedia in order to get the autoconfirmed permission that will allow you to edit pages with this level of protection.

Mikewem (talk) 03:39, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]