Talk:Madison Cawthorn

Article goes way beyond scope with the SPQR claim.

Labeling the usage of SPQR as being a skinhead or white nationalist is way beyond the scope here. Not to mention the source directly contridicts this claim. Really guys? 104.5.85.39 (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. It reads like undue weight personified. Kafoxe (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@Kafoxe do you think my recent edit fixed it ? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madison_Cawthorn&oldid=1084307605 Immanuelle (please tag me) 18:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

It's better than it was, but frankly, I would remove the entirety of the sentence beginning with "The symbol has seen some far right usage". SPQR is not in any way classified as a hate symbol, and placing any attention on it in spite of Pitcavage's statement is still undue weight on something that has little lasting significance, in my opinion. Kafoxe (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

A brief mention is due. SPQR's connection to white supremacy is mentioned by a large body of sources. I think we've covered it about as briefly as possible, and are likely overweighting Cawthorn's defense. I wouldn't necessarily push for a change to balance it back, but I do oppose further minimization of the connection. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Meaningless goofy photos are not encyclopedia-worthy

Meaningless goofy photos are not encyclopedia-worthy. Furthermore somebody inserted mention into the sexual misconduct allegations section, which it isn't. And trivializes the actual allegations of misconduct. Publishing this makes Wikipedia look like a bunch of 7th-graders. -- M.boli (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@M.boli I agree. The only significance of the photo is that he may be accused of hypocrisy over his attitudes towards gender roles, and this would require that that criticism itself (not just the photo) becomes notable.

Personally I see nothing wrong with crossdressing so even if he is a hypocrite there's not much to go after him on even if I was writing a piece critical of him over a neutral encyclopedia article. Immanuelle💗 (please tag me) 18:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

The extent of the importance of these "goofy photos" will be determined by WP:RS over time. It's not merely an issue of the photos, but whether or not he is a sufficiently serious person to serve in Congress, which will be up to the voters of whichever district he chose to run in. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

"whether or not he is a sufficiently serious person to serve in Congress" You have got to be kidding me. Voters elected gun nuts and conspiracy theorists such as Lauren Boebert, anti-LGBT crusaders such as Tulsi Gabbard, and people openly opposed to the right to privacy such as Marsha Blackburn. But Cawthorn is not serious enough because he is a cross-dresser? Since when was seriousness required for American politics? Dimadick (talk) 09:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Dimadick, don't take it up with me. Take it up with the Republicans who are turning on him. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I think summaries of recent controversies, like the one in the source you cited, are an early measure of what's sticking and what's transient recentism. The lingerie stuff was left out, but the driver's license and drug-filled orgy stuff was included. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

That source didn't include the photos. Other sources do.[1][2] I am not advocating for including it at this time. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Left-wing propaganda within the article

"He has been criticized for his controversial rhetoric,[3] including falsely asserting that the 2020 presidential election was fraudulent..."

"falsely asserting": How do you know? How can you prove a negative? How do you know that Biden was legally elected when postal voting is well known for its fraud? Stop the framing, left-wing bias and report in an objective way. wikipedia is not the DNC.

62.226.84.178 (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

There have been audits that have turned up nothing. [3][4][5] There was no mass voting fraud. Or, provide evidence that there was. Wikipedia is not Newsmax. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources ( many of which are cited in the article) say about election fraud. There is not a single reliable source that has concluded that election fraud changed the results of the 2020 election. The proven voter fraud cases have all been minor, and most involve double voting by Trump supporters. So, allegations of "left wing bias" must be accompanied by links to actually reliable sources (not propaganda sources) that provide actual evidence of fraud, instead of wild unsubstantiated allegations. Such sources must address the overwhelming consensus among bipartisan election officials and the dozens of rulings by state and federal judges that no evidence of systematic voters fraud has been proved in the 2020 election. People can shoot their mouths off forever, but "Where's the beef?", as the old advertising slogan goes. Another way to state it is "Put up or shut up". Cullen328 (talk) 05:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

"and most involve double voting by Trump supporters" The few articles on voter fraud which I have read online were about Trump supporters who cast votes in U.S. states other than the one where they reside, or who cast votes in the name of absent or bedridden relatives. Dimadick (talk) 09:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

In Pennsylvania, where Republican leaders seeking higher offices complained about supposed "electoral fraud," the Lt. Governor released the findings of an extensive audit. It had found three illegally cast votes made in the names of deceased mothers of the illegal voters. The Lt. Gov. said he was proud to announce that "Trump got 100% of the 'dead mother' vote." I note that only two edits of Wikipedia have ever been made from this IP address, both on the same day. It geolocated to Darmstadt, Germany, in Hesse state. Activist (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Grammar

In section Early career: Cawthorn is the owner and CEO SPQR Holdings...
As long as this stuff is kept, this should be changed to Cawthorn is the owner and CEO of SPQR Holdings...
Thanks, Caehlla2357 (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Who/what Cawthorn was referring to by "earthen vessels"

(For the sake of disclosure I'm pro-life but I also am not a conservative or a fan of Cawthorn as per my userboxes, I'm just trying to make the article more accurate)
The article claims Cawthorn called women (from context it can be implied pregnant women) "earthen vessels sanctified by Almighty God", but the full quote says "Eternal souls woven into earthen vessels sanctified by almighty God and endowed with the miracle of life are denied their birth", which makes me think the vessels here are the human body which (in Christian theology) is united with the soul, meaning he was talking about the fetus' body, not the woman's. The article cited for this claim states something similar, saying, "it seems Cawthorn, a vocal evangelical Christian, was using "earthen vessels" to refer not to the mother's body, but to the body of the unborn baby."
I plan on editing the article to reflect both interpretations, but I figured since there's been a considerable amount of controversy surrounding this politician that I would post something here about it first. XP6287 (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

XP6287, we can't know what he intended, but we do know the reaction according to RS. We would need RS that cover your interpretation. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Muboshgu, the currently cited source does support that interpretation, and it casts some doubt on the idea that he was describing women. Honestly, I'd rather remove it than give it additional weight with a framing based on he said this, others criticized that, still others criticized the criticism. Most of the coverage appears to be in unreliable sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I haven't looked to see what the source says. If we're misinterpreting the RS, that needs to be fixed. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The article does give its own interpretation and twitters. Since the article is guessing his intent, maybe along the lines of

Madison’s statement “Eternal souls woven into earthen vessels sanctified by almighty God and endowed with the miracle of life are denied their birth” caused controversy as Sara Boboltz and Dr. Jennifer Cassidy remarked on the statement as referring to women not pre-born.

Preferably the current sentence should be removed until another reliable source is found.Manabimasu (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)