Jump to content

Talk:Conservative Political Action Conference: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m →‎RfC CPAC stage Odal shape: Clarified and fixed typo in question
Line 297: Line 297:
{{rfc|pol|rfcid=A5C89CC}}
{{rfc|pol|rfcid=A5C89CC}}


Should the article mention that some sources noted the CPAC stage had an appearance similar to a Odal and that this symbol was used by some Nazi units?
Should the article mention that some sources noted the CPAC 2021 stage had an appearance similar to the Odal rune, a symbol used by some Nazi units and neo-Nazi groups?


Sources listed in section above. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 04:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Sources listed in section above. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 04:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:12, 2 March 2021

Ann Coulter's Comments at 2007 CPAC

74.232.5.105 and I really seem to disagree on whether the reaction of the audience was "laughter" or "hissing," and I would appreciate it if other editors would offer their opinions. Also, should the fact that many high-profile politicians from both parties condemned her comments be included in the article? Discuss! Dunne409 05:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, look for yourself, it's all over GooTube. Sounds like a gasp and then laughing/clapping. Someone wrote "hissing" but I didn't hear any. I don't know if the condemnations are really necessary. This article is about the event, and none of them condemned her at the event. 68.33.185.185 06:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did watch the video myself, and agree that the reaction was laughter; please help protect this article from vandals who may want to distort the facts. I suppose I also agree that the information about condemnation should not be in the article. Dunne409 06:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I was writing the exact same sentiment (about watching out for the "pro-hissing vandal" (LOL). He just now tried to change it back to "hissing" and called me an asshole -- right on the article page. I think the facts show that they laughed and applauded. I detest vandals. 68.33.185.185 06:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a good idea to keep Coulter's '07 speech off of the CPAC page and make reference to it on her page. That's how it is now.

Andrewman327 (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)andrewman327[reply]

Matthew Sanchez

I have removed the bit about Matthew Sanchez being outed as a gay porn star (although I did leave the fact that he received an award that night, with the link to his entry intact). This had absolutely nothing to do with the proceedings of CPAC 2007, no matter what your political persuasion. 66.75.153.15 04:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Glass and CPAC 1997

Something could be said about the New Republic article by Stephen Glass on the 1997 edition. --Error (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I found a story about him. I don't see where it would fit, but feel free to refer to him.

Andrewman327 (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)andrewman327[reply]

John Birch Society

Some anons are edit-warring over whether to include, in the introductory section, the John Birch Society's co-sponsorship of the 2010 conference.

I think the fact is worth including but isn't important enough for the introductory section. It belongs in the section on the 2010 conference, where I had placed it before the edit war began.

I'm removing it from the introductory section. To the anonymous editors, please stop reverting each other and discuss the subject here. JamesMLane t c 11:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. The introductory section is for people who hear somebody mention CPAC and don't know whether it's a political conference or a chocolate dessert popular in the American southwest. I'll probably put the John Birch Society under the forthcoming section on CPAC's role in addressing controversy. Andrewman327 (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)andrewman327[reply]

Jon Stewart

I removed the Sentence stating that Jon Stewart mocked Glenn Beck on the Daily Show. What Stewart or anyone else says or does it not relevant to this piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.121.73 (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of speakers

I've removed the list of speakers for two reasons. One, it is a BLP issue. Second, the size of the lists distracted from the sections, which should be going back to 1973 (and the speaker lists would be disaster there). Third, most importantly, the focus should be on independent sources about the CPAC conferences in a narrative, not just who showed up and spoke. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lists are lengthy but I believe they add something to the article. A conference like CPAC is primarily about the speakers -- there will be vendors and networking and whatnot, but the speeches are the main thing. Therefore, the lists, although long, are informative about the nature of the event.
Can you explain what BLP issue you see? If any particular listed person is someone who might consider it a negative to be identified with CPAC, then we could make sure the sourcing was solid, but most of those people would be more likely to consider it a negative if their names were removed from this article. JamesMLane t c 20:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the people who say the speakers are a major part of the article. They are obviously the main attraction of CPAC. The very fact that the conference is notable stems mainly from people being familiar with the speeches given by speakers like Rush/Beck/Coulter/Gingrich/Cheney/Bush etc. We should bring them back. J390< (talk) 9:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed New Outline for Article

I am in the process of overhauling the article. I have already made substantial changes, but here is a list of things I plan to do as I have the time. Let me know what you think and feel free to take care of some of them yourself. I'm still trying to figure out how to describe each year's CPAC without making it seem like lots of boring lists.

  • General intro similar to how it is now.
  • Significance of CPAC (in the media, American politics, conservative movement, etc.).
  • CPAC logistics
    • Attendance
    • Descriptions of all awards given
      • Jeane Kirkpatrick Academic Freedom Award
      • Ronald Reagan Award
      • Defender of the Constitution Award
      • Blogger of the Year Award
    • Straw poll
  • Role of CPAC as a means of settling disputes regarding what the conservative movement should stand for (e.g. tea partiers versus social conservatives and attendees in the 70s who wanted to found a 3rd party versus GOP supporters)
  • Early CPAC history.
  • Recent CPACs
    • CPAC 2011
    • CPAC 2010
    • CPAC 2009
    • CPAC 2008
    • CPAC 2007
    • CPAC 2006

Andrewman327 (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)andrewman327 Andrewman327 (talk) 20:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)andrewman327[reply]

I personally have no problem with including boring lists in the description of each year's CPAC. The information is much more accessible than if we were to attempt to name all the speakers in a narrative, and the list of all speakers is useful information about the conference. JamesMLane t c 20:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you feel that way. It makes me task easier. What do you think about the rest of the proposed changes? Andrewman327 (talk) 06:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)andrewman327[reply]

I'm waiting to see how the "role in settling disputes" part works out. Generally, in American politics, disputes don't get settled except by elections, so any assertion of such a role for CPAC will need to be solidly sourced. Other than that, your proposal looks fine to me. It's partly a reorganization but you're also proposing to add a lot of material that's not in the article now. This will improve the article if it can be done in accordance with Wikipedia policies (NPOV and verifiability). Good luck! JamesMLane t c 05:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well put all around. I'll start with the basics that can be easily verified, like the different awards that are given. I'm trying to focus on what a typical person who doesn't know anything about CPAC would want to learn from the article. Too many Wikipedia articles delve into minutia without giving enough basic information first.

I'm more glib on a talk page than an actual article, so the real section will probably revolve around how CPAC shows the diversity of opinion of the conservative movement as opposed to actually settling issues between different factions. To wit: Several articles on the early CPACs talk about whether or not to found a third party and feelings about Richard Nixon. This year the narrative was establishment conservatives versus tea party activists. There are also the battles between social conservatives and Libertarians (see Huckabee's comments on why he skipped this year) and gay conservatives versus anti-gay groups. And don't get me started on the John Birch Society controversy. CPAC is a place where all of these groups work under the same roof (or, to invoke a cliche, under the same big tent). Andrewman327 (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)andrewman327[reply]

LINKS I PLAN TO ADD: http://twitter.com/LisaDeP/status/9406757391

http://www.politicsmagazine.com/magazine-issues/june_2010/2010-republican-rising-stars

http://find.galegroup.com/gps/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=IPS&docId=A221450994&source=gale&srcprod=ITOF&userGroupName=va0047_002&version=1.0

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Snow_We_didnt_create_war_in_0301.html

http://0-proquest.umi.com.millennium.fallschurchva.gov/pqdweb?did=3460420&sid=2&Fmt=2&clientId=32207&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Andrewman327 (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)andrewman327[reply]

GOPround controversy

Should we mention that the boycotters are frequently making the false claim that GOProud advocates same-sex marriage? 75.76.213.106 (talk) 04:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a reliable source to back it up. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think in depth controversies about GOProud should be kept on their page and linked to from this one.

reasoning for wording edits

I dunno who thought adding the "many conservatives" bit when it came to the straw poll, but last I checked, the citing for it was one blogger who has a deep hatred for marijuana usage and homosexuals, going so far as to call both immoral. "many" should denote a poll of some kind if used, and until further research on the subject would be done, minor dissent would be the best descriptor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.220.220 (talk) 04:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social conservatives make up a very large part of the conservative movement; the Paulites/libertarians are a small minority. "Many" is accurate. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many is not accurate unless you can properly cite it. ViperEmpire (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Straw Poll winner

It currently says Ron Paul, but no source is provided. Herman Cain won a CPAC straw poll in Orlando in September, however. Could the article explain this discrepancy?--Brian Dell (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CPAC in Washington is the conference the article is about. CPAC Florida is like a sub-conference. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism Section

If a Criticism section actually contributes to the understanding of CPAC, then let's have a Criticism section. However, the current content in that section hardly offers any real criticism. Whereas the current Criticism section serves up emotionally charged partisan rhetoric from the political left, one could condense it into something more politically neutral, such as saying that CPAC has had a few controversial speakers. Or something like that. What is currently in the Criticism section is clearly from someone who just hates the other viewpoint. Let's make this entry respectable. RedSix (talk) 05:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent points. Delete the section and start over? – Lionel (talk) 06:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It sounds more like sour grapes than reality based criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.189.221.40 (talk) 11:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks--I'd been meaning to make those changes myself. Honestly, I don't think we usually need a "criticism" section for partisan activities. We can take it as read that when people in a democracy are active for side A, they will be criticized by people who disagree with side A; if they have speakers, the speakers will certainly be "controversial", because there's no point in arguing if there isn't a controversy. I'd only open up a criticism section if there's particularly noteworthy criticism--e.g. from the group's own side, or from very prominent people on the other side (like high officeholders). (For example, I think it might be noteworthy that prominent conservatives criticized the conference for banning GOProud--though that's currently well enough covered in the "Recent Conferences" section.) Narsil (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with delete the section and start over. Criticism sections in general are frowned upon in the guidelines (but I can't tell you which guideline!). Would it do any good to explain the the editor who added it why it is not appropriate—or would that be bullying? --Kenatipo speak! 00:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Straw Poll winner

Today, at noon PT (3pmET) the annual straw poll will be taken. Here is the schedule:[1] -- AstroU (talk) 10:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nod of CPAC goes to Ron Paul ("3-pete", third year in a row). Scott Walker surges to 2nd.

By Washington Times Staff - The Washington Times - Saturday, February 28, 2015
Percent (for) Candidate

  • 25.7% for Sen. Rand Paul
  • 21.4% for Gov. Scott Walker
  • 11.5% for Sen. Ted Cruz
  • 11.4% for Dr. Ben Carson
  • 8.3% for Former Gov. Jeb Bush
  • 4.3% for Former Sen. Rick Santorum
  • 3.7% for Sen. Marco Rubio
  • 3.5% for Donald Trump
  • 3.0% for Carly Fiorina
  • 2.8% for Gov. Chris Christie
  • 1.1% for Former Gov. Rick Perry
  • 0.9% for Gov. Bobby Jindal
  • 0.8% for Former Gov. Sarah Palin
  • 0.3% for Former Gov. Mike Huckabee
  • 0.3% for Former Ambassador John Bolton
  • 0.1% for Sen. Lindsey Graham
  • 0.1% for Former Gov. George Pataki
  • 1.0% for Undecided
  • 0.7% for Other
    I'll add more references later. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-2006 Straw Poll Data

I'm having a surprisingly difficult time finding data on the straw poll results from before 2006. If anyone has access to old news paper archives or ACU documents with this information, please contribute. It would be great if we could fill in the blanks! Bomberjacket5 (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section

The controversy section is organically out of place, and actually unnecessary. If the only "controversy" is Milo Yiannopoulos's now canceled invitation, that merits no mention in any article except Milo Yiannopoulos' article. It's also a good idea to avoid "controversy" or "criticism" sections in partisan subjects. --Bigeyedbeansfromvenus (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conservative Political Action Conference. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Conservative Political Action Conference. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CPAC Stage

This is a poorly sourced, non-notable incident. The cited source is a satirical editorial from The New Hampshire Gazette--with no listed author. It has exactly one sentence on the incident. This is wholly WP:UNDUE and non-WP:RS. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And this last edit is a pure WP:SYNTH vio, Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 05:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remedied. Radio Adept (talk) 05:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To name a few, the incident has been covered in Snopes, Slate, and the German public radio Deutschlandfunk. It seems far from being poorly sourced or non-notable. Radio Adept (talk) 05:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too sure about the German radio source. However, with the Slate source, this deserves--at most--two sentences. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 06:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in agreement, I already deleted the golden Trump statue part for both being really idiotic and for doing more damage to the slanted coverage of recent events, this one seems to be fueled partially on conspiracy. I wholly doubt an organization that runs CPAC attended by majorly members of one of the two largest political parties in the U.S. is trying to sneak symbolisim of Nazi iconology after they threw out white supremacists from the event already. I'm concuring with maybe the introduction of two sentences, but even at that I'm so hesitant. I'd rather this article didn't get bogged down in nonsense Twitter hysteria. CaliIndie (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CaliIndie, although I agree with you and Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d in regard to the stage, the statue is unquestionably worthy of inclusion. Google it and see. Besides the The Hill, Market Watch, Vox, and The Guardian, which are all used as sources and which you deleted, it's covered by CNN, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Houston Chronicle, the Washington Examiner, Yahoo News, Newsweek, Reuters, and many more. Some of these sources have multiple stories on it. While the stage may be questionable, the statue is clearly not. I've reverted both deletions to WP:STATUSQUO until a consensus can be reached. WestCD (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is the statue not questionable, no I really don't care about the coverage, websites want clicks and report sensational trash all the time. CaliIndie (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WestCD, The sourcing for the golden statue is obviously more solid than the stage incident. However, there is still the question of lasting impact. As for the stage incident, if all we have are low-quality sources, then it's pretty guaranteed there will be no lasting impact. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope we can at least agree on this trim I made. This is not an article on Nazi symbols, so lets only include matters/citations relevant to the subject. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Adept, why are you re-adding so much irrelevant details? This is not an article on the history of the Rune. If readers want to learn more, they can simply click on the link. (and please learn the definition of vandalism) Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said below, all sources include the background of the symbol, because it is not the symbol itself that is notable, but the background of that symbol. Relevant information is central to the incident's notability. Also, calling the people noticing the resemblance "mentally unsound" and calling Snopes a "far left joke website" certainly seems like vandalism to me. Radio Adept (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Radio Adept, This is not an article on the symbol. This is an article on CPAC. Readers can click the link to read more about the symbol. We follow what the soucres write. "Also, calling the people noticing the resemblance "mentally unsound" and calling Snopes a "far left joke website" certainly seems like vandalism to me"--Um, I definitely never said that. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"This symbol was adopted in Nazi Germany as the badge of the SS Race and Settlement Main Office,[35] responsible for maintaining the racial purity of the Nazi Schutzstaffel (SS), as well as by the 7th SS Volunteer Mountain Division Prinz Eugen, the 23rd SS Volunteer Panzer Grenadier Division Nederland, and many neo-Nazi groups worldwide.[36] The particular rendition with wings or serifs has no historical significance outside of Nazi Germany." This amount of information is WP:UNDUE to the extreme. And it's easily becoming a WP:COAT. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware you didn't say those words; I was referring to the IP edit that was the subject of my "Undo vandalism" comment. (Though looking at the edit history, it looks like another user beat me to the undo.) Radio Adept (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll

Let's do this in an orderly fashion. All opposed to keeping or deleting the info about the stage and statue speak now or forever hold your peace. I'll start:

  • Weak keep for the stage, Strong keep for the statue. As I mentioned above this is based on the amount of coverage for each one. WestCD (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Radio Adept has now proved the notability of the stage controversy, as silly as it may be. They now both clearly at least deserve a mention of some type on the page. WestCD (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete for both. Utterly stupid, a golden statue the media wants to throw a tantrum about doesn't warrant Wikipedia dedicating a subsection to, and the stage is leftist Alex Jones hogwash. CaliIndie (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the stage. No opinion yet on the statue. Having multiple RSs is the minimum we need to establish due weight--and we simply don't have that for the stage. Now that we have some decent sourcing, there are other problems too. This is simply a trivial matter and a clear WP:PROPORTION vio. What does a stage design have to do with CPAC? We need to stay on WP:TOPIC and actually write about CPAC--their history, their speakers, their policy preferences, etc. People getting offended by a stage has no WP:LASTING impact. We are under no obligation to insert every faux breaking news controversy. On a further note, this article has been tagged with {{recentism}} since 2017, and a sysop recently added the {{controversy}} tag. Instead of exacerbating the issues of this article by adding another phony controversy, let's work on actually trying to remove the maintenance templates by fixing pre-existing problems with the article. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, are the 16 sources presented below by Radio Adept (including gold standards such as The Guardian and The Washington Post) enough to sway your opinion on sourcing? –dlthewave ☎ 03:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sway my opinion on sourcing? Sure. Sway my opinion on deleting or keeping the edit? No, not really. I could refactor my !vote with a different justification for excluding the edit, if you like. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC) th[reply]
I mean, if you want that part of your !vote to stand, you'll probably want to change it. When consensus is assessed, !votes based on concerns that have already been addressed are usually disregarded. –dlthewave ☎ 03:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I changed it. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for both. User:WestCD already gave a thorough overview of the coverage on the statue. The stage's shape has been covered by Snopes, Slate, Business Insider, the Orlando Sentinel, IB Times, HuffPost, and the German public radio Deutschlandfunk, to name a few. It seems far from being poorly sourced or non-notable. Also, all sources include the background of the symbol, because it is not the symbol itself that is notable, but the background of that symbol. Relevant information is central to the incident's notability. Radio Adept (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both the golden idol and the rune stage. The statue has been covered by The New York Times and BBC News, which establish notability without question. Conjecture about the rune stage is already so widespread that Snopes has published a page about it, saying the intent is not yet clear, indicating their expectation that more investigation will yield an answer. I agree with their assessment that further investigation will bring the intent to light. In the meantime, our readers can satisfy their interest with the pieces written by staff reporter Kelsey Vlamis of Insider, former columnist Daniel Politi writing for Slate.com, and the Orlando Sentinel. Of course, we conclude with Snopes' assessment. Binksternet (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This seems like a case of someone finding an excuse to be outranged and then a few unsympathetic sources running with it. Is there any evidence this was a deliberate choice or the organization in any way wanted to call upon Nazi or Nortic symbols vs this was simply a design choice? Springee (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the statue. Several reliable sources, such as NYT, Independent, CNN, The Guardian, The Hill, Slate, Vox, and Reuters have covered it. And there are also other, less reliable sources, such as Fox. As for the stage, I'm not sure. Ahmadtalk 01:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hyatt issued a statement calling "symbols of hate" "abhorrent" (as reflected in the article). This statement got coverage in reliable sources: Reuters, The Guardian, Washington Post and Independent are the ones I could find, and, in my opinion, more are likely to follow. So, I'd say keep the part about the stage, too, but we should also cover the statements coming from CPAC organizers for the sake of neutrality. Ahmadtalk 11:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Re the statue: no need to give publicity for a sculptor's for-sale product. Re the supposed Nazi symbol: if it had looked like an H somebody could have decided that refers to Hitler, if it had looked like a V that's a symbol used by Churchill and he was a racist, etc. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those analogies don't make sense. The Odal rune is known to be a popular alternative to Nazi symbols, in contexts where overt Nazi imagery would be distasteful. For example, from a 2016 statement by the National Socialist Movement:

      The NSM will be ceasing public use of the swastika effective Nov. 5th, 2016. Our flags and banners now bear the Odal Rune, and our patches will soon follow suit. To some this may seem a major change, as we have fought long and hard under the swastika for decades. This change is not up for debate, nor was it done on a whim. The Party Leadership has every intention to bring our Party, our Leaders, our Members and Supporters into the halls of Government here in the United States, and to do that we must reach more of the public. The masses believe exactly as we do, but have steered clear of us due to our use of the swastika. Your Party Platform remains the same, your Party remains unchanged, it is a cosmetic overhaul only.

      Not exactly the same as interpreting "H" to refer to Hitler. Radio Adept (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the replies above I think it's clear there is no consensus for including this material here (stage, no comment on the statue). I have removed it from the article. If consensus changes then of course it can be restored. Springee (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no reason to expect consensus on such an inherently politically charged topic. What matters are the facts, and the facts are clear—this incident, given its extensive coverage in many high-quality outlets, is notable. Radio Adept (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      1) We always need consensus. 2) Please read WP:TRUE. We don't need to include every ridiculous "fact" in every article. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • When you are reduced to "I don't like it" arguments, your power of leverage is reduced, and a simple straw poll will not represent the proper consensus. Counting heads is not how we do consensus. I have not seen anyone on the "delete" side of the debate describe how Reuters and BBC News and the Orlando Sentinel and the Guardian UK etc. can be considered insufficient to establish the importance of this issue. Binksternet (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Consensus is based on policy based !votes, which I don't see at all on the "delete" side. Rationale such as "Utterly stupid, a golden statue the media wants to throw a tantrum about doesn't warrant Wikipedia dedicating a subsection to"; "This seems like a case of someone finding an excuse to be outranged; "no need to give publicity for a sculptor's for-sale product" are just editors' opinions which do not in any way reflect Wikipedia policy and would be thrown out by any closing admin. Dr. Swag Lord's mention of sourcing is more on the mark, but it seems that those concerns have been mitigated now that more sources are available. –dlthewave ☎ 15:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which policy applies here? ONUS certainly applies. This is trivia. We have sources that started with a twitter account that said the stage looked like an Odal. This seems to have caused a stir with click bait stories from sources that have been hostile to conservatives as of late. But what does it actually tell the reader about CPAC? Does anyone think CPAC actually meant to dog whistle a symbol used by some Nazi orgs? Is this actually something that is widely recognized? I suspect most people would avoid using things that looked like a swastikas' even accidentally. The same is true of the stylized Nazi "SS". But are people even widely aware of the Odal-Nazi connection? Do any of the sources claim this was deliberate? Conservatives are generally very supportive of Israel so why would CPAC want to use a Nazi associated symbol? Additionally, when one looks at not just the stage but the whole set it's easier to see this this as an inadvertent likeness. So why would we include an inadvertent likeness? We aren't required to include trivia just because it was mentioned by generally RSs. This is just such a case. Springee (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DUE would be the relevant policy, and this section covers several viewpoints of a controversy that emerged from CPAC 2021 which was reported widely by reliable sources. Whether or not the incident was intentional is irrelevant to policy and not up to us to answer or decide. Its widespread coverage merits inclusion in my opinion. I would dispute the trivia characterization, this was a significant controversy related to the event. –dlthewave ☎ 16:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BALASP, An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. This is a minor aspect of the subject. This is a recent event that won't likely survive the 10 year test. If it does then we can add the material then. Springee (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this Odal rune thing will be seen ten years from now as a foundational moment in the group's evolution. We don't know, of course, if the issue will later be deemed trivial or critical. So what we do in this situation is tell the reader about the things that they came here to read. If we don't summarize the widespread media depictions, then we are not serving the reader. Binksternet (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It might but that would be a WP:CRYSTAL issue. Also, we don't know why people came here to read this article. We aren't serving the reader by including content that runs afoul of RECENT and could suggest something about the group that isn't true. Springee (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

The CPAC stage incident is without a question notable at this point. Hyatt has released a statement, and the following outlets have published full-length articles about the stage's shape:

—Radio Adept (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The stage's shape has since also been covered by Fox News, the New York Post, and the Washington Examiner, all traditionally right-leaning sources. The public universally considers this incident notable, no matter the political side. Radio Adept (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recentism?

The CPAC has existed since the 1970s and was attended by famous historical figures like Ronald Reagan. Yet almost the entire article text is focused on what happened in the 2010s and 2020s. PBZE (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure more historical information would be welcome. -- Pemilligan (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Recentism and a WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION to boot. This article needs work, especially from a historical perspective. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. For starters, does anyone else see a problem with the "Fringe Groups" section? I don't think GOProud or the Log Cabin Republicans are considered fringe groups. And I don't really understand what's controversial about them co-sponsoring with CPAC. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC CPAC stage Odal shape

Should the article mention that some sources noted the CPAC 2021 stage had an appearance similar to the Odal rune, a symbol used by some Nazi units and neo-Nazi groups?

Sources listed in section above. Springee (talk) 04:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Survey Stage

  • Oppose This is a classic example of RECENT. None of the sources are claiming this was an intentional association. As such it says very little about the CPAC organization, their proposed policies etc. It's a gaff and emphasizing it is in effect emphasizing something that is little more than trivia. Many of the source reporting this are reporting on the Twitter activity around it and aren't ascribing any intent or motivation on the part of CPAC. Other than having a laugh at an unfortunate design choice (and how many here would honestly have made the connection had it not been pointed out) what value is this in the article? How would this stand up to the 10 year test? Springee (talk) 04:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is simply a trivial matter and a clear WP:PROPORTION vio. What does a stage design have to do with CPAC? We need to stay on WP:TOPIC and actually write about CPAC--their history, their speakers, their policy preferences, etc. People getting offended by a stage has no WP:LASTING impact. We are under no obligation to insert every faux breaking news controversy in this article. On a further note, this article has been tagged with {{recentism}} since 2017, and a sysop recently added the {{controversy}} tag. Instead of exacerbating the issues of this article by adding another phony controversy, let's work on actually trying to remove the maintenance templates by fixing pre-existing problems with the article Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely yes. Numerous high quality media reports have been dedicated to the issue. It's basically notable enough to meet WP:GNG and have its own article. But our readers will be better served by keeping the material here in this article to show the proper context, and in any case this article would have one paragraph about the issue with a link to the separate article, so there's really no point in writing a separate article. Binksternet (talk) 07:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As Springee said, there is no implication by the sources that this was intentional, and was little more than a gaff. He's also right when he says it's a classic case of WP:RECENT. I also echo Dr. Swag Lord's comments. — Czello 08:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. Countless high-quality sources, left- and right-leaning, domestic and international, including gold standards such as Reuters and The Washington Post, have deemed this topic notable enough to dedicate full-length articles to its collectively tens of millions of readers worldwide (see above for list). The incident was notable enough to provoke a statement from Hyatt, a reply from the CPAC organizer, and a condemnation from the International Auschwitz Committee. None of them thought this was a "phony controversy"—otherwise, they wouldn't have paid this any mind. (Recall that Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d's original reason for blanking this section was that it was WP:FORBESCON, then that it was "poorly sourced, non-notable".)
Intentional association does not matter and, unless the actual CAD designer of the stage takes a polygraph, may never be known; instead, the resemblance itself, and how it was perceived by vast sections of the general public, was notable. If the incident weren't politically polarizing—rather, if this were any other topic—there would be no doubt among editors that this passes notability as a topic about which readers would like to learn.
WP:RECENT is not the silver bullet against this incident's inclusion. Recent events are perfectly under the purview of Wikipedia, and this incident passes the WP:10YEARTEST: Far from a random gaffe or embarrassment (e.g., a wardrobe mishap, a misspoken word), this incident received exactly as much coverage and scrutiny as it did because it came at the heels of a trend of rising far-right and populist sentiment within the United States and worldwide. It is not hard to imagine that in 10 years' time, historians may mark this incident as a significant moment in the trend. Radio Adept (talk) 09:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: looking through the sources discussing this, what seems to be notable or newsworthy is the social media response/outrage to the incident, rather than the shape of the stage itself. That historians would think in 10 years that some social media outrage over a silly gaffe is "a significant moment in the trend [of rising far-right and populist sentiment]" is kind of ridiculous. Volteer1 (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, most sources focused on either Hyatt's statement, the CPAC organizer's response, or both. (Interestingly, many German sources focused on the Auschwitz Committee's statement.) It is clear from their words that no party involved thought this was a "silly gaffe"; Hyatt said they were taking this incident "very seriously" and had "deep concerns", and the CPAC organizer Matt Schlapp said the claim was "outrageous and slanderous". Not the kind of words you use for something silly. Radio Adept (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did any source claim it was an intentional association? Did any source claim it represented the message/intent/etc of CPAC? Springee (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my comment above about intentionality. Radio Adept (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The claim that the British royal family are shape-shifting lizards goes in the article about the claimer (David Icke) rather than in the article about the British royal family, because the sources cited for it are really about the claim and not about them. The odal claim is also silly as explained in our earlier discussion, and the sources cited for it could be about the Twitter claimers rather than about CPAC. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For reasons I've already stated in the prior section. CaliIndie (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your reasons given above include "seems to be fueled partially on conspiracy", "no I really don't care about the coverage", and "the stage is leftist Alex Jones hogwash" along with your personal opinion that CPAC would not do this intentionally. We can and do cover notable controversies and even conspiracies associated with the topic. These types of arguments are routinely thrown out by closing admins; if you have a policy-based reason for exclusion (perhaps I've missed it), I would suggest adding it here. –dlthewave ☎ 18:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a noted controversy associated with the event that has received significant RS coverage, enough to establish due weight. The thing that sets this apart from mere trivia is the extent to which involved parties as well as experts in the field have weighed in; we have sources that cover the views of the American Conservative Union, Hyatt (which hosted the conference) and even dive into the history of the rune's use as a white supremacist symbol. Intentional or not, at this point the rune resemblance is far beyond social media controversy status. –dlthewave ☎ 17:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is the controversy? Are sources saying that CPAC knowingly used the symbol? Remember, this is an article about CPAC not about how social media can run away with a gaff. Springee (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion Stage

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Conservative_Political_Action_Conference&oldid=1009878898"