Talk:Madison Cawthorn/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

References to consider

I meant to incorporate them into the AfD and DRV discussions, but I didn't get there in time before they closed. I definitely think he meets WP:GNG with reference of their caliber and especially considering they talk about different aspects of his notoriety:

References to consider

Madison Cawthorn Wants to Defuse the G.O.P.’s ‘Generational Time Bomb’

A NYT article highlighting Cawthorn's desire to connect GOP values with younger voters.

Congressional candidate Madison Cawthorn says Republican establishment wasted full control of government

A Hill article showcasing his conservative/grassroots activism and sentiments.

Republican Madison Cawthorn, 24, wants to be a voice for 'zoomers' in Congress

An NBC article highlighting why he thinks younger voters need younger congressional leaders.

He's 24, Partially Paralyzed and a Republican Rising Star. Meet Madison Cawthorn, Who Upended North Carolina's Runoff Race

A Time article showcasing how Cawthorn looks towards not only this election but his past struggles and uses them to plot ahead.

What to Know About Madison Cawthorn, 24, Who Could Be the Youngest-Ever Person in Congress

A People article which profiles Cawthorn's background and political forte.

Accident survivor returns to thank Halifax Health trauma staff

A Daytona Beach News-Journal (local paper) article that notes Cawthorn's accident, recovery, and gratitude in 2015 (i.e. before running for congress).

Beyond Therapy Helps Strengthen Body and Mind

A Shepherd Center (top-10 ranked rehabilitation program in the US) article showcasing Cawthorn's recovery and his general attitudes with regards to physical and mental therapy plus life goals in 2017 (i.e. before running for congress).

North Carolina Race Suggests Trump’s Washington Has Become the ‘Swamp’

A U.S. News & World Report article that argues Cawthorn's victory might signal a coming trend of Republican primary campaigns which run contrary to Trump.

I will incorporate some of them into the article. Philotimo (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Content removals

User:KidAd has removed a larger portion of content from this article on the grounds of WP:NOTNEWS. Their reversions of my edits have led to assertions that Cawthorn is a motivational speaker being restored, despite no evidence here or support from reliable sources that he actually is a motivational speaker. Their reversions have also left a portion of text about Cawthorn's college attendence now unsourced (whereas I had provided sourcing from an Asheville newspaper), which is obviously not prefereable. I'm hoping this was unintentional. Now, as to the content I beleive they were referring to by NOTNEWS:

• They removed what I added about Crawford dropping out from college. They did this under the grounds that the article "already said he dropped out". This is factually innaccurate. It doesn't say that anywhere in the article now.
• They removed what I added about Crawford performing poorly in college due to his injuries and why he dropped out. Including information about a person's academic career is pretty standard for biographies. I don't see why removing is justifable under NOTNEWS.
• They further removed info about his company making no profit or owning any real estate. I don't like the PRIMARY sourcing on that one, but the same statement about no income is supported by the news source I provided. I'd happily adjust it. As for the question of whether it belongs in the first place, I don't see how it is not relevant to include information about a company owned by a subject of a bio that makes no profit. We are calling him a "businessman" in the lead. Wouldn't it make sense to briefly describe what a "businessman"'s business actually does or how profitable it is? In summary, please do explain to me why we shouldn't explain a few important things about a businessman's business on an article about him.

For the record, most of this information pertains to this news article. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

As I said in an edit summary, I don't care if "motivational speaker" is included in the article or not. Sources (like BBC, Fast Company, and WaPo) use the label, but it's fairly inconsequential. Aside from that, most of the other disputed content is sourced to some regional newspaper. WP:NOTNEWS states While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPBALANCE are also applicable here. But some of the points in the above comment are just silly. They removed what I added about Crawford dropping out from college. They did this under the grounds that the article "already said he dropped out". For example: This is factually innaccurate. It doesn't say that anywhere in the article now. The article states Cawthorn attended Patrick Henry College during the fall 2016 semester to study political science. That provides any information the reader needs to know. He attended the college for one semester, did not graduate, and did not earn a degree. All without supposition, embellishment, and soap opera relationship drama direct from the candidate. KidAd (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@KidAd: I'm baffled why it's so hard to add that he did poorly and particulalrly that he "dropped out." The stuff about his breakup I added simply because I thought him dropping out ought to have an explanation if he offered one, though I'll take your point that it is somewhat melodramatic. But again, why not add the clarification that he "dropped out"? Right now its only implied that he actually did this. That I might have taken one semester at a university but not taken a subsequent one does not mean I've dropped out. That should be made explicit. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

User:KidAd has been actively removing anything that can be construed as negative on the pretense that WP:NOTNEWS, while keeping in the article elements such as

If elected, Cawthorn will become the youngest republican and one of the youngest of the youngest members ever elected to the House of Representatives, with the distinction of youngest currently believed to be held by William C. C. Claiborne of Louisiana, who was elected in 1797.[16][17]

which is unsourced in the citations too or

Cawthorn attended Patrick Henry College during the fall 2016 semester to study political science.[5]

If these are noteworthy, then him lying about the Naval Academy or his Hitler post which gain national and international attention is too. If this candidate is to have a Wiki page (and I am not entirely sure he should as per NPOL) then all relevant and newsworthy elements should be included, not only those who portray the candidate in a positive light.Eccekevin (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The formatting here is getting ridiculous. The "youngest republican" material is some decent WP:TRIVIA not added by me, so don't act like I'm responsible for it. How about this: gain consensus for your content per WP:ONUS instead of WP:WIKILAWYERING with me. I've already explained to you why the material is poor and violates WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS. KidAd (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

But you removed all other stories that portrayed him in a bad light, including many just as WP:TRIVIA, and you kept all those that portray him in a good light. And no, you didn't explain why such a big news story is WP:NOTNEWS, you just have complained that you think it's not fair and you disagree with the interpretation.Eccekevin (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The content was removed because it violated policy, namely WP:NPOV, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:BLP. Try to focus on improving the content instead of casting WP:ASPERSIONS. KidAd (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Only in your opinion do they violate WP:NOTNEWS, since all of those four points are applicable. The Hitler photo story, and likely the one about lying about the Naval Academy are well above the threshold of newsworhtyness according the the WP:NOTNEWS guidelines. As per WP:NPOV, that is a matter of opinion. The article can report his response to the claims, and makes it neutral. The page contains many facts, some of which you may see as bad for the candidate, but again, that is just an opinion. Finally, nothing WP:BLP excludes news coverage of electoral campaign candidates.Eccekevin (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Reason has an article refuting/pointing out the flakiness a number of the claims against him. [[1]] Springee (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and it should be included in the page. Together with Cawthorn's comments.Eccekevin (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm getting some WP:Status quo stonewalling vibes here. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

User:KidAd And what are your thoughts on the company information? You did not respond to those points. Nor did you really respond to the comments about his academic career other than saying "That provides any information the reader needs to know." -Indy beetle (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm getting some WP:Status quo stonewalling vibes here..then "why aren't you responding to me?????" Give me a break. KidAd (talk) 04:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@KidAd: Let's just say I see someone removing lots of content from an article added by different editors saying "Show ONUS" I'm someone predisposed to think they are status quo sontewalling. Thus the "vibes" I'm getting. As for the content points I was making; my points were posted, you had come back to this page since I posted them and had not responded to them, so either you ignored them, did not read them, or did not for whatever reason think they were worth responding to. I'm asking you to respond to them in a bit more detail (regarding the education background) or at all (regarding his business profitability). -Indy beetle (talk) 04:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Show respect to get respect. I'm done for the day. KidAd (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@KidAd: You don't get to play the whole "You need consensus to add this content...but now I'm too miffed to build any" game. That is stonewalling. If you don't wanna participate in the discussion that leads to consensus, then fine; we'll build it without you. Wikipedia doesn't wait for you to feel like participating. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: Atleast I'm not opposed to a more carefully worded version which doesn't doesn't go into all detail about Spartan helmets and stuff. I think the Associated Press article would be the best starting point and model for any version. Can you write a version based on this and add it? Thanks. The AP version even interviewed ADL who said: “Based on those specific things, I don’t think someone can make a good case that the person (using them) is an extremist.”. So that is why we had to be careful for BLP reasons. --Pudeo (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Pudeo: I wasn’t that concerned with the alt right symbol stuff, I’m more concerned with basic facts about his education and business. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed all the sources here, but I agree that this material should be added with extreme caution to avoid wp:undue. A couple sentences at most, if that. Bangabandhu (talk)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 August 2020

Change "He dropped out at the end of the semester." to "He dropped out after his first semester, after mainly getting D's." (Source https://www.scribd.com/document/471486060/2017-Madison-Cawthorn-deposition) Mwg2001 (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

To editor Mwg2001:  done, and thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 04:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Allegations

Have there been sexual harassment allegations against Cawthorn, and, if so, will mention of this be added to this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Do we have better sources on this? Koncurrentkat (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Please update this article with information about his association with SPQR and white supremists

Cawthorn takes hard right turn, calls Asheville reparation plan 'racist' Tom FiedlerAVLWatchdog.org

https://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2020/08/11/cawthorn-turns-hard-right-defends-use-symbols-tied-white-nationalism/3346238001/

A prominent source of social-media discussion is the corporate name of Cawthorn’s real-estate investment company, SPQR Holdings LLC. The initials SPQR derive from the Latin initials for “the Senate and People of Rome,” which denoted the Roman empire at its height and today appears widely on Italian tourist trinkets. But in recent years, SPQR has been embraced by skinhead gangs in Italy and by some white nationalists in the United States. Banners with those initials were carried by white supremacists during the “Unite the White” demonstrations and were later singled out by the Southern Poverty Law Center as signifying a hate group.

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drvalsummers (talk • contribs) 15:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Review section on Early Life and Education and make corrected citations if available

At the end of the first pgph of Madison Cawthorn's early life and education:

"Some sources report that Cawthorn later received a Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) scholarship from the United States Marine Corps to North Carolina State University, but he questioned that assertion in a 2017 deposition.[9][10][11]"

Only the Daytona Beach News-Journal citation (https://www.news-journalonline.com/article/LK/20150410/News/605054742/DN), of the 3 sources listed in the article as written, mentions anything about a NCSU/Marine ROTC scholarship. The university/scholarship/etc not mentioned at all in Cawthorn's 2017 deposition linked at the bottom, so he didn't "question" the assertion there, either. It's also unclear where News-Journal got their information about NCSU and Cawthorn. Can better sources be found to help round out this section and add context, or can the text be edited in a way that is more faithful to the sources that we do have? 97.89.144.102 (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 September 2020

The article states that Esther Mannheimer criticizeed Cawthorne. I think it's only fair that she be identified as a Democrat. 47.187.201.108 (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Personally, I don't see this as a necessary detail here - if readers are curious, her name is wikilinked so her party affiliation is only a click away. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, not necessary. It is more relevant that she is the mayor of the largest city in the district, rather than political affiliation. And I agree with ElHef, the article is linked and any reader can just go check.Eccekevin (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Congressional Campaign Last Two Lines

During his election bid, Cawthorn's campaign created an attack website which posted racial dog whistles.The website accused a journalist of leaving academia "to work for non-white males, like Cory Booker, who aims to ruin white males running for office." --cited NY Times article does not reference Cawthorn or the attack website. Replace source with [2] and remove "racial dog whistles" since the source does not use those terms. Additionally, state that the attack line was subsequently deleted. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 00:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I've resolved these issues using a North Carolina news source.-Indy beetle (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I added the phrase "racist dog whistle" back in the article because the news source that Indy beetle added uses that phrase in the headline: "Western NC GOP House candidate sounds racist dog whistle in attack on journalist". — Toughpigs (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Seems good to me. I agree with Indy beetle's edit that racial dog whistle is not needed. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

White nationalism allegations subsection

This article is difficult to read, mainly because it is heavy on the allegations of white nationalism interspersed with the content. As an example, one paragraph starts with the sentence "Cawthorn spoke on the third day of the 2020 Republican National Convention" (which was in August), then the next sentence talks about the completely unrelated attack on Tom Fiedler (in October). The SPQR acronym issue is somewhat buried in the "Business" subsection. While it's obviously about his business, it's more relevant to other white nationalism topics.

The white nationalism allegations are both noteworthy and important. They should all be available under one subsection in the article (Similar to the "Sexual misconduct allegations" subsection) so readers can get the full picture on the issue without needing to put together the bits and pieces scattered throughout the article.

Jttx76 (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think we have enough sources that warrant a whole white nationalism subsection. All we have is 1) the SPQR acronym incident, which the source does not allege that Cawthorn is a white nationalist. All it alleges is that SPQR has been used by other white nationalist groups. And 2) we have the Hitler vacation house incident. I believe in that case the source does allege he's a white nationalist, but then right after, we have an ADL source that basically refutes those allegations. So unless we can find a few more sources, I think it would be better if we integrate that content throughout the article. But, I agree that the article is kinda hard to follow. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Support collecting the various items into one section. There are enough different items at this point that it's a pattern.

1. The SPQR thing.
2. The Hitler vacation house incident.
3. The accusing a journalist of being a "race traitor" and then the complete non-apology.
4. Tone-deaf (at minimum) comments on the Civil War, the "Betsy Ross Flag", the "real racist" attempts at reversal... https://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2020/08/11/cawthorn-turns-hard-right-defends-use-symbols-tied-white-nationalism/3346238001/
5. https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/rnc-2020/article244872697.html

One thing? Two things? Could be just coincidence. The number of incidences is beyond that. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I already addressed 1 and 2. For 3, the cited sources don't allege him being a white nationalist. For 4, you're using the same source that's already cited. "Tone-deaf" is your characterization. The comments about the Civil War and the Besty Ross Flag are complete nothingburgers. And he's accusing others of being the "real racists" so I don't get why that makes him the racist. For 5, that basically repeating the Hitler vacation house and SPQR story--no new information or allegations. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 23:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

"Well they're the REAL racists" is classic DARVO dog-whistling. It's a cliche. https://twitter.com/timodc/status/1153325742358351873 IHateAccounts (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Lol. Yeah let's include the expertise of some left-wing twitter pundit. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Longstanding trope. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/apparently-real-racists-are-anti-racists/ https://www.salon.com/2015/07/10/democrats_are_the_real_racists_inside_the_gops_pathetic_insulting_response_to_charges_of_bigotry/ IHateAccounts (talk) 00:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, and the Democrats and liberals are the tolerant ones: https://americanmind.org/post/the-institutional-racism-of-the-democratic-party/ Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Claremont Institute? Why don't you just link Stormfront and be done with it. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

A lying article that pretends the party inversion didn't happen, too. https://www.history.com/news/how-the-party-of-lincoln-won-over-the-once-democratic-south I'd be shocked but I

saw that coming a mile away. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Did you really compare the Claremont Institute with a neo-Nazi, white supremacy website? I think you should take a break from watching MSNBC for a while. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

One of the challenges of integrating it through the article is the facts that are unrelated to the white nationalist allegations are obscured. Overall, the article is light on facts, and significantly negative (363 words are neutral facts, 646 words negative content, 22 words positive content). It needs more content unrelated to allegations, but it's tough to contribute additional neutral information when everything is surrounded by allegations. Jttx76 (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with that. There isn't a lot of info on him yet (especially not by mainstream sources). Does his website list out his political positions? If yes, then we can add that in. BTW, how did you calculate neutral vs. negative vs. positive words?? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 00:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

His positions are on the campaign website's Key Policies page. I'll take some of that content, plus some of what he said on The View and put something together for this article.

To calculate the neutral/negative/positive words, I just put the article in MS Word, cut the negative stuff and pasted it into a new doc, then got the word count of each document. Jttx76 (talk) 00:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Really? How long did that take you? Is there some guide that determines positive vs negative words? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Just a quick 5 minute unscientific exercise. I took sentences that were primarily negative topics (SPQR, sexual misconduct, etc) and counted the words in each. I've used software in the past that uses AI to classify text as positive or negative, but didn't use it here. Jttx76 (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I’m getting the feeling that neither one of you should be editing this article Swag Lord and IHateAccounts. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not editing this article--Jttx76 is. I'm merely inputting in my 2 cents on his original question. But IHateAccounts feels the need to challenge me on everything I write, and start pointless political debates with me. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 02:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

State

Why does it say georgia in the infobox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.29.116.54 (talk) 03:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Spring Break SUV accident

Could you add more detail to this. Who was driving and how many people were in the vehicle? Were they drinking in the car? Did anyone else get injured or die? 203.131.210.82 (talk) 01:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC) Just him and his friend, no, none was drinking. All that’s relevant is here; the driver fell asleep, Cawthorn was paralyzed, and had a dispute with the insurance company. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

2020 Election Results

• Suggested EditThe article is protected and needs to be updated to say he "is" the youngest member ever elected.....10Sany1? (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

  10sne1, This is incorrect: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-54823890 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@10sne1: He won't be until he takes office on January 3. —C.Fred (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@C.Fred -- thanks, makes sense. 10Sany1? (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Reads Like A Campaign Ad

This Wiki page reads like it was edited by his campaign staff. Maybe somebody with more knowledge can attempt a cleanup? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:C000:264:6D59:919D:5344:4076 (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, the article in its current form is too reliant on Cawthorn's candidacy website for information. It needs to be re-written and re-sourced.70.112.229.80 (talk) 03:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Right, when? Seems priorities of editors to take action vary. Bias? Wikipietime (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

As of August 2020, I'd say it is bordering on reading like a hit piece. Not sure a campaign comment on his Naval Career is very relevant. Campaign spin is not actually notable. Thoughts? Would like to hear others feedback on this. Koncurrentkat (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

In November 2020, never having heard of Cawthorn until his election, in my opinion the entry is pretty good. It gave me some quick background. If sections are perceived as unwarranted hits, I'd like some elaboration as to why in the entry. XFLQR (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

SPQR inquiry

I’d like to show concern with the section dedicated to Cawthorn’s early career. It is mostly dedicated to showing that SPQR is associated with white supremacy. This seems more to be a push to somehow make him a racist by indirectly implying he named it that because of its white supremacist ties. When in reality SPQR is an abbreviation for Senātus Populusque Rōmānus, is an emblematic abbreviated phrase referring to the government of the ancient Roman Republic. Just because some white supremacist claim the title doesn’t mean it’s a white supremacist symbol. I should go to Ilhan Omar’s wiki page and say her Muslim affiliation has also been claimed by ISIS. See how that sends the wrong idea?

I suggest whoever wrote this, and all the editors on this malpracticed platform learn how to write objectively.

Now I speak directly to the one who made the association. I know exactly what you were trying to show and link to him. It didn’t work. Biaskiller45 (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree it wasn't written neutrally. The cited source includes Cawthorn's response to the matter: 'he provided a written statement calling it merely “a term for Rome” and denouncing efforts “by extremists on any side to hijack or rewrite history” by attaching other meanings to it. He added that this nation’s Founding Fathers were influenced by such Roman statesmen as the philosopher Cicero, who warned against authoritarian policies, which Cawthorn said today would describe “the Green New Deal and Medicare for All.”“SPQR is a warning to my generation from the ages against tyranny and authoritarianism,” Cawthorn wrote in the statement'. Feel free to condense that statement and include it in the article. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The language as it stands is a neutral and NPOV representation of the coverage. Cawthorn's statements fall under Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies Applies territory given the known ACTUAL reasons that individuals in recent history have used the SPQR acronym as a meme or reference, especially individuals who also say racially demeaning things like "They want people to be able to get into college with lower grades and lower school scores simply because they are African American." [3] IHateAccounts (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

What's relevant is who is making this association. What news outlets, sources, or individuals? If enough have, it is licit for Wikipedia to point this out. Wikipedia's role is not to make a judgement call, but to report and synthesise what sources are saying. If some are claiming this link, and the individual is denying it, then Wiki should report both, if well sourced.Eccekevin (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The current source used on the article states it's original Roman meaning, it's recent meaning and connection to white supremacy, and Cawthorn's response. I was going to say that if there are other sources that have made the association, specifically to Cawthorn (not just the association with the acronym in general), then it is fine to keep. That seems to be the case.[4][5][6][7][8] But I agree that it should at least have his response, too. It's poorly written as it is now, and needs the context that he has been criticized/questioned about the acronym's use and gave a reply. - Whisperjanes (talk) 02:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Both Eccekevin and Whisperjanes make valid points. It seems like every source that mentions the SPQR story, also includes Cawthorn's rebuttal. It looks very selective if we didn't include his statements. For the Hitler vacation house story, and the sexual assault allegation, we included Cawthorn's remarks. So, why wouldn't we include them in this case? It's not a false balance, since all sources report Cawthorn's rebuttal on the matter. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 02:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies Applies IHateAccounts (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I saw you mentioned that essay above. The section still reads strangely - it's missing context. I'm not against leaving out his reply if others feel that way. However, there needs to be context that this was a criticism of him, rather than making the sentences sound unconnected. I had to double check that the sources used on those two sentences actually mentioned Cawthorn because the sentences themselves made no mention of him. (I know this might seem like a separate issue, but to be honest, that's what bothered me and brought me to the talk page). I do think if media attention is enough on accusations/criticisms of his actions being connected to white supremacy (enough that this calls for wp:Mandy Rice-Davies Applies), then the article might also do best with an expanded section that could allow for critical responses and more context. But the section right now is poorly written. - Whisperjanes (talk) 03:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that editor is citing an essay as though it's some hard-core policy. The problem is that the source is not even accusing Cawthorn of being a white nationalist, or alt-right, due to the SPQR acronym. All the source is saying is that some white nationalist groups have appropriated that acronym for their own use. To declare that Cawthorn is a white nationalist based off that is basically a Reductio ad Hitlerum argument. This Reason article lays it out nicely. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 09:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

In an Associated Press article, there was a statement by the Anti-Defamation League's Mark Pitcavage: Betsy Ross flag, the SPQR abbreviation and Spartan helmet are not included in the league’s database of hate symbols. Pitcavage said while there are examples of their use by white supremacists, or in the case of the helmet by antigovernment or firearms activists, they are used “just as much or more often by nonextremists than extremists.” Without specifically evaluating Cawthorn, he said: “Based on those specific things, I don’t think someone can make a good case that the person (using them) is an extremist.”

I suggest you stop pushing WP:BLP attacks based on flimsy connections that have been specifically questioned by experts. --Pudeo (talk) 11:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, a couple of things to address in the two messages above. The Wikipedia article does not "declare that Cawthorn is a white nationalist", so I'm not sure what you're talking about. And the fact that the AP is reporting on this means that the concern is likely wide-spread enough that it's worth mentioning. Also, an expert did not "question" them - just mentioned it's just as likely or more that it's non-extremist, while also mentioning that they are sometimes used by white supremacists (and then they do not evaluate Cawthorn specifically, as the handy quote says above, but do say "they don't think someone can make a good case that the person is an extremist"). Whether Cawthorn is a white natioinalist or not is not what's being discussed here - what's being discussed is if reliable sources are covering this topic, if it's due weight, who is saying it, if it meets BLP standards, and then putting together the information that meets those guidelines in a thoughtful way. Eccekevin summarized it well above. I now see 7 sources on this talk page that have covered this, so we have sources to work with when evaluating these points. - Whisperjanes (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the article declares that Cawthorn is a white nationalist. A user kept referencing an essay that has almost no relevance to this matter, since we are not saying, and the sources are not saying, that Cawthorn is a white nationalist. Just b/c we have sources reporting on the matter does not automatically mean we need to include it. And I really don't see a benefit for the reader for including it. We're essentially saying this: "Cawthorn likes ice cream. It has been reported that some neo-Nazis like ice cream. However, an expert at the ADL has confirmed that liking ice cream does not necessarily make you a neo-Nazi." Seems fairly absurd and undue to include it. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

In the case of the SPQR flag, which is specifically tied to white nationalist fascism as noted by the SPLC, that's an incredibly poor and deficient analogy you're trying to make. "But in recent years, SPQR has been embraced by skinhead gangs in Italy and by some white nationalists in the United States. Banners with those initials were carried by white supremacists during the “Unite the White” demonstrations and were later singled out by the Southern Poverty Law Center as signifying a hate group." - @Pudeo: it would help if you read the sources before you removed things under false pretenses, and I am making the polite suggestion that you revert yourself here.

As an aside, @Whisperjanes:, I am open to expanding the section to cover the other items that have been observed/criticized by reliable sources that you note in your replies. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: In the case of the SPQR flag What does Madison Cawthorn have to do with SPQR flags? His company was named SPQR, that is all. There indeed is a white nationalist "SPQR flag" which also features the fasces and that is mentioned in some sources not related to Cawthorn. It would be synthesis to talk about a white nationalist SPQR flag when the subject here has never used that flag. --Pudeo (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Again, your comment indicates you didn't bother to read the sources. That's kind of shameful. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I have read the sources and there is zero hard evidence for extremism allegations, per Mark Pitcavage's expert opinion. The rest are anecdotal connections which have been speculated but should be avoided as WP:UNDUE weight and caution for BLP reason. Citing WP:MANDY essay here is meaningless, what matters is blp. --Pudeo (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

"Early Career" is a misnomer

The section "Early Career" only talks about SPQR Holdings and whether or not "SPQR" is a white supremacist symbol. Sounds more like something for a "Controversy" section, along with the sexual misconduct allegations.SQB (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Completely agree. Early career section should be rewritten. Really this whole article should. From the snarky comments on his naval career to this early career section, this article reads more like a hit piece and doesn’t seem to be impartial or informative at all — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZachofMS (talk • contribs) 06:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Of course this is a hit piece. And now due to "arbitration decisions" in Wikipedia, it will stay that way. Wikipedia has become nothing more than just another evil mouthpiece for globalist elites. Anyone or anything that opposes their narrative will be hit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cw5301 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing for info about his personal life

Not sure why the Fox News piece replaced the People article. All these places are just using "info" posted on his campaign website or social media accounts.70.112.229.80 (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Did he get married and keep it a secret? From "Madison Cawthorn for Congress" on FacebookDecember 24 at 6:02 PM · "My wife and I got to go on a ride along and serve Christmas cookies to a local Sheriff’s department tonight!" https://www.facebook.com/Cawthorn2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calinjaxnc (talk • contribs) 03:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Use of white nationalist symbols

It looks as if there has been a bit of an edit war back and forth on this subject. I wanted to go ahead and start a discussion header here. The information strikes me as relevant and factual (Cawthorn's own statements on the matter do not dispute the fact that he has used these symbols - he merely denies their association with white nationalism). He is his party's nominee for a seat in Congress, which makes him notable, and I would say these details meet NPOV as long as they include any of Cawthorn's responses on the matter as available. Juansmith (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

First, the flag/Roman reference "controversy" will need better sourcing than this. As for the Instagram posts, that material needs to be pared down and placed in another section. The wording needs to be significantly revised. KidAd (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Without getting into what sounds like it may be about to become a partisan debate, I can understand the request for better sourcing on the SPQR thing. As for the IG posts, "significantly revised" is pretty vague. Can you explain your objection to the wording I used, as it pertains to Wikipedia policy? Here it is for reference (with the markup I included):

In August 2020, Cawthorn's Instagram account deleted several posts with photos of his 2017 vacation to the Eagle's Nest, the Nazi retreat in Germany visited by Adolf Hitler more than a dozen times. In the post, Cawthorn described The Eagle's Nest as "the vacation house of the Führer", and said it, "has been on my bucket list for awhile, it did not disappoint" [sic]..

-Juansmith (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Avoid insinuation with statements like this: "Without getting into what sounds like it may be about to become a partisan debate." It is a given that Cawthorn's politics are abhorrent. This is an issue about poor writing, weak sourcing, and WP:NPOV/WP:BLP. Fix the issues and you're golden. KidAd (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I still find your criticism fairly non-specific (citing the policies does not clarify the matter), but I'll take another crack at it when I can. Juansmith (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

There is a better source for this material: [9] - article in the Charlotte Observer. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

No matter what is decided here, please spell Hitler's first name correctly. It's Adolf, not "Adolph." Moncrief (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Given the level of media attention, this is absolutely worth including. I have re-sourced all the claims with very reputable sources, including the Charlotte Observer, the Times of Israel, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Newsweek, in addition to more partisan sources like the Huffington Post. I have also included Cawthorn's response.Eccekevin (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the section is/was problematic in some ways for BLP reasons. It started with his alleged far-right and white supremacist sympathies. None of the sources I saw, not even Jezebel, made this specific allegation. Jezebel in fact stated that Which is not to say that the Betsy Ross flag or the use of the phrase SPQR automatically brands someone as a white nationalist, or even someone with an affinity towards the ideas animating white nationalist movements - however - But it certainly raises some questions. Charlotte Observer wrote that social media posts went viral that some say signal support for white nationalism. How much weight can you give to a "some say" mention? In any case, "white nationalist" should be used instead of "white supremacist" because that was used there.

The paragraph also called Führer a 'honorific' term based on a random tweet quoted in the Washington Examiner, but omitted the fact that Cawthorn had called Nazism a "supreme evil" in the same post, which is cited in the original Jezebel piece. Not WP:NPOV.

That is incorrect, the "honorific use" is quoted in both the Times of Israel anf the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Given the relevance of neo-Nazi ideology, jewish sources should not be discounted as 'random tweets'. The Jeruslem Post also states that 'Fuhrer' is a "term of reverence". SO this fact is really well verified in the sources. Eccekevin (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I understand your position on this, but it's a pretty weak argument to say that 'Fuhrer' can only be used as an honorific in the sense of paying tribute to someone and can never be used with factual, historical, comical, sarcastic, or other sentiment. The Producers used the title to great comedic effect by making fun of Hitler.++Arx Fortis (talk) 06:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Why is an adjective like "reverence" being used to describe "Fuhrer"? Nowhere is this term used in the Wikipedia page for Fuhrer. I am suspicious that this is an attempt of shameful bias and unfairness. Such adjectives ought to be eliminated from this article unless its first attributed with equivalent prominence in the Wikipedia page for Fuhrer. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%BChrer. (talk) 05:09, 04 January 2021 (UTC)

Multiple citations covered the same Jewish Telegraphic Agency article by Philissa Cramer. In this version, the original JTA article is citation [20]. Citation [30] ways a duplicate of the exact same link. Citations [22], [26], [27], [28] feature the JTA article in different publications. Also the Charlotte Observer story is citation [32] but citations [35], [34], [33], [31] and [21] are the exact same source. Please don't spam all available sources in the citations - it does not give any more weight. --Pudeo (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Eccekevin, per WP:ONUS, The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. So you must gain consensus for the material before it can be included, not after. KidAd (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Given that Cawthorn has never held office, and the existence of a Wikipedia page in the first place is of doubtful notability for candidates - see WP:NPOL, not including the major news story or most relevant element of his candidacy is nonsensical. I can see disagreeing with the wording, but not disagreeing with the inclusion of such a major news and political element of his candidacy. This story has been covered so far by Business Week, Charlotte Observer, the Times of Israel, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Newsweek, Jezebel, Washington Examiner, Huffington Post, The Sun, in addition to local news outlets like the Charlotte Observer, Smoky Mountain News, the Bozeman Chronicle. So I believe the onus is now on a case against the inclusion of this episode (particularly the deletion of the Instagram post) anf the other allegations. [User:Eccekevin|Eccekevin]] (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

not including the major news story or most relevant element of his candidacy is nonsensical. Incorrect, per WP:NOTNEWS. And I disagree with inclusion because of the wording. KidAd (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I can already guess that the Smoky Mountain News and the Bozeman Chronicle may not be the best sources for contentious political material. And The Sun? Do you mean this The Sun? And again, per WP:ONUS, it is incumbent upon you and you alone as the person who wants to include material to gain consensus for that material if it is disputed, which it is, by many people including me. KidAd (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The Smoky Mountain News is a local news operating inside the Congressional District this race is unfolding in, so I don't see how they could be more relevant. I included The Sun, despite being a shitty tabloid, among the outlets reporting on the story just to show how wide encompassing coverage has been, spilling out from political outlets. This is the major news story of his candidacy for the general election. If this is not relevant, then his whole candidacy isn't notable for NPOL, since candidates only deserve a page if they have attracted significant news coverage. As @Juansmith: pointed out, these allegations are factual and the Cawhtorn campaign does not dispute them, merely the interpretation. So we have a series of factual and well-sourced incidents, media attention and nation-wide and international coverage, and an incident that defined this campaign more than any other one. This is clearly notable and relevant, otherwise this page is overall non-notable per NPOL. Eccekevin (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

these allegations are factual and the Cawhtorn campaign does not dispute them, merely the interpretation. What. Of course they dispute the allegations. He's taken tourist pictures in the Eagle's Nest, that's factual, but the allegations are about possible white nationalist sympathies. They definitely haven't accepted those. Even the Jezebel article states these symbols/pics don't necessarily mean an affinity towards white nationalist movements but that they "raise questions". --Pudeo (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, so simply stating he took a picture at Hitler's vacation home, posted it, and then took it down after criticism is a fact. That merits to be included. His response obviously merits to be included too. But I don't see an argument for this episode not to be mentioned on the page. How is the (unsourced) mention of William C. C. Claiborne of Louisiana on this page more relevant than this episode which drew national and international media attention? Eccekevin (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

This is all Nonsense, there is no proof that he intended to show racist symbols, its like everytime you scratch your middle finger, does that mean your making a vulgar jester ?Wwdamron (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

What's more relvenat are not his intentions, but the media coverage of it. Wikipedia is not a judge, merely a reporter of facts.Eccekevin (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing why this shouldn't be included. It's (the photos at Hitler's retreat) been covered by multiple reliable media sources now (particularly The Charlotte Observer is no pushover), and represents a significant portion of the media coverage about him and his campaign online. All I'm seeing is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Since this will get extremely political, I introduce “poster boy”. Embellish. Wikipietime (talk) 21:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

News Outlets currently reporting on this story.

• Local (to his congressional district/state): North State Journal, Charlotte Observer, Smoky Mountain News, The Raleigh News and Observer, ABC13
• National: new York Times, AP Press. Business Insider Newsweek, Jezebel, Washington Examiner, Huffington Post, The Sun, Bozeman Daily Chronicle, Seattle Times, Reason.com, Washington Times, Cleveland Jewish News
• International: The Times of Israel, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, The Sun

This is clearly an important story, despite the WP:IDONTLIKEIT by KidAd. Not even mentioning the Hitler photo incident while mentioning his high school internship or that his girlfriend does CrossFit would be truly ridiculous.Eccekevin (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not Wikipedia policy. It is an argument to avoid during article deletion discussions. Stop pinging me. KidAd (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

As I said, not even mentioning the Hitler photo incident and the media scrutiny he has received while instead mentioning his high school internship or that his girlfriend does CrossFit is truly ridiculous and a blatant attempt at sanitizing this page. Nothing in WP:NOTNEWS is relevant do this discussion since this 1) is not original reporting 2) this is breaking news, but it is not treated differently than other information in the page 3) not applicable point 4) this event goes beyond trivia day-today occurrence. Hence, I would like to hear an argument specifically against mentioning his Hitler photo criticism, him taking it down and his response, since it has attracted a lot of media interest. If there is not argument against the inclusion of this specific fact, I will rewrite it.Eccekevin (talk) 23:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Since there were no substantial objections, I rewrote just the basic facts in a neutral way, including Cawthorn's response.Eccekevin (talk) 06:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey @Eccekevin: the CNN article also interviewed Mark Pitcavage. Pitcavage also highlighted the fact that the Instagram post from Cawthorn that has come under scrutiny uses the term "supreme evil" in describing the site. "He made it clear in that very same post that he was not sympathizing with the Nazis. So I didn't see there was much merit to that accusation," Pitcavage said. You probably didn't see it that article yet. So he dismisses both the symbol and the Eagle's Nest allegations. --Pudeo (talk) 07:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok, yes I see it know. I just saw that in the AP News quote he was only referring to those other symbols. I personally believe the more the better in the article, but I know that KidAd has been brandishing WP:NOTNEWS and the Mark Pitcavage may not be considered relevant to him. I instead am in favor in the inclusion, after having seen the article.Eccekevin (talk) 07:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Paid position in Meadow’s office

Venmo interview implies employee. Clarification needed since he would have had prior knowledge of Meadow departure. Many questions and few sources. BOLP not following policy, imo Wikipietime (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Updates? Wikipietime (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Anyone? Wikipietime (talk) 04:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Accident

Might be worth adding information regarding the fact that Cawthorn and his friend had been switching seats while the car was in motion prior to the accident, as it appears to have been a key point at trial: https://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2020/08/12/madison-cawthorns-claim-naval-academy-creates-false-impression/3350634001/ --LaSombrerera (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Paralympic claims

Worth adding: https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/madison-cawthorn-paralympics/ Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Also worthy to mention he isn't 3vencregistered with the International Paralympic Committee and thus could not have participated in the olympics Nbdubya (talk) 14:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Cawthorn's Role in Inciting Insurrection, etc.

Another, editorial, perspective on previously noted Talk entries, as well as the video of his participation in the pre-incurrection Trump rally on 1/6/21: https://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/editorials/article248826769.htmlCalinjaxnc (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

He can't keep getting away with it

>The Anti-Defamation League does not include SPQR in its hate symbol database, and the organization's Mark Pitcavage said that it is used "just as much or more often by nonextremists than extremists".[17] How do we catch this depraved racist when all his skinhead propaganda is plausibly deniable?? Cardboard Lion (talk) 06:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Tom Fiedler, not Fielder

Typo in the 2020 Election section. In paragraph 4 journalist Tom Fiedler is referred to as "Tom Fielder." It appears to be a typo as the journalist's name is spelled correctly throughout the rest of the paragraph. If someone could edit it that would be great. Gofastdsm (talk) 09:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing this out, Gofastdsm. JBW (talk) 09:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Topic paragraph

It seems annoying that there is a specific page for the 2021 special election that he won, and it still redirects to not just the entirety of North Carolina House of Representatives elections, but the House of Representatives elections throughout the whole nation. Pixar1995 (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. In the 2020 election section, the "see also" header links to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in North Carolina#District 11. Marquardtika (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

For sure. But not only is there a page for the elections in North Carolina, but there is a specific page for the exact election that he won. Pixar1995 (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see. This one: 2020 North Carolina's 11th congressional district election. I'll change the article so it links to that. Good call. Marquardtika (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Great. Should the top also be changed Pixar1995 (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:17C1:8170:2CB7:2D93:7610:9270 (talk) 03:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC) 

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 March 2021

Before anything related to “sexual misconduct” put “similar to Joe Biden,” 108.17.64.97 (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Remove Alma Mater?

Most people would read that and assume he graduated from PH. But the article itself states that he attended only 1 semester. That hardly qualifies him to be considered an alum. 2600:1700:17C1:8170:2CB7:2D93:7610:9270 (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely no policy supports inclusion. Cawthorn earned 1/8th of an American bachelor's degree, so listing any institution in the infobox is nonsensical. The justification provided in this edit summary, which cites a Merriam-Webster dictionary definition, is weak for two reasons. First, the Merriam-Webster dictionary is not being used as a source in this article and is not associated with Wikipedia policy guidelines. Second, the actual Merriam-Webster dictionary definition has been selectively quoted to fit this editor's point of view. Their edit summary states An alma mater is any school one attended per Merriam Webster (2019), while the complete definition reads a school, college, or university which one has attended or from which one has graduated. KidAd • SPEAK 21:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree with User:KidAd. Eccekevin (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The full dictionary definition says "a school, college, or university which one has attended or from which one has graduated." While my POV is admittedly anti-Cawthorn, technically the dictionary definition supports the notion that Mr. Cawthorn is an alumn, as he attended PH, and the dictionary definition states "or". Since he attended, he is an alumnSpencerkberry (talk) 07:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

As User:KidAd said, what dictionaries say have no bearing on Wikipedia policies, so this point is moot. WP is based on RS. Including this info based on a personal interpretation of a dictionary definition is OR. The article already mentions he attended that college, so the reader has that information, it just does not belong in the infobox. Eccekevin (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

It would be clearly and obviously misleading to call Cawthorn an alumnus without immediate qualification, and that should settle the matter. It isn’t the proper function of Wikipedia to try to deceive readers with legalistic hair-splitting and fine print. It’s the function of Wikipedia to try to inform readers. TheScotch (talk) 08:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 May 2021

Cawthorn got married in 2021 not 2020. 205.214.195.37 (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Heralded at NC gop convention by Trump June 2021

Notation of Trump’s endorsement and accolades of his face might be included. Wikipietime (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality of the article

This entire article reads more like a hit-piece than a Wikipedia article. It is not necessary to weave in a dozen fact checks, at least one for every paragraph. Debate chess (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I’m not sure I follow you. It sounds to me as if you’re saying it is not necessary that the article be truthful. If the significant and relevant facts make the subject appear unappealing, it isn’t the article’s fault; it’s the subject’s fault. TheScotch (talk) 08:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I came here to note the violation of NPOV. Already done. Thank you for doing so. For the deflector, who feigned the inability to perceive what was was plainly before them: consider the words of Warren Wiersbe: "Truth without love is brutality, and love without truth is hypocrisy." It is a hit-piece, as noted by the creator of this section. -2601:156:1:9D10:458F:7BB9:4CF2:829E (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

If truth without love is brutality, then encyclopedias by their very nature are and should be unflinchingly brutal. “Love” in this case would obviously translate to POV. Encyclopedias should not write “lovingly” of any subject. Truth in an encyclopedia should never be tempered to salve the conscience of supporters of the subject. Save your “love” of Madison Cawthorn for your personal pursuits. TheScotch (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm with the first guy. Wow! I was just curious in him because he was so young. C'mon, he must have done SOMETHING positive, no?? I know nothing about him so maybe you're right, but it doesn't seem likely that there isn't even just one thing good he's done.

The reference given for the fact that he lied about his opponent being a "Never Trumper" is an article that only references the fact that the opponent claims she isn't. Politicans claiming stuff about themselves is not a reliable source and should be backed up by additional facts. A correct statement is that MC claimed that his opponent was a never trumper which his opponent denies. Jthompson5254 (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)