Talk:Othala

CPAC stage

Further removals will be considered vandalism Added FOX News link.

Fiveinchheels (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Fox Bangor isn't Fox News. Rubiscous (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

People need to stop removing edits as a means of trying to whitewash this story. It's being picked up by more and more sources, whether supporters like it or not.

Fiveinchheels (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Why are these edits being reverted? The fact is that the image is clearly there in the design of the CPAC stage

Fiveinchheels (talk) 12:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

They're being reverted because the Daily Kos is WP:GUNREL.

Jerdle (talk) 13:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Better source at https://www.nhgazette.com/2021/02/26/conservatives-flock-to-socialist-hellhole-worship-golden-effigy/, The New Hampshire Gazette. Binksternet (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

That isn't a better source. It's a self described rant from a biweekly alternative paper with about 5000 subscribers. Not a good source at all. 172.73.99.10 (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

It's an editorial from the editor of an established progressive newspaper. It doesn't have to be unbiased to be a reliable source. See WP:BIASED. It also doesn't have to be a very big publication. Binksternet (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I almost started this discussion after archiving the talk page last night, but ti was late and I decided to wait. So, my feeling is that anyone with eyeballs that work can see that the stage is in the shape of the rune. It just is. Therefore we don't need the best sourcing possible to verify that. Anything beyond that, why on earth anyone designed such a stage, who fromt he conference approved such an odd, useless design, what reasons they had for doing so, etc, we can't say at this time. I fully expect this to be a developing story that will be picked up by more mainstream sources in the next 24/48 hours. (and as an aside, as this is a pet peeve of mine if you are going to use a WP initialism as a shortcut to making your argument as Jerdle did above, it is expected that you take the extra two seconds to actually link to it. It is a totally accepted practice to use WP shortcuts in this way, but not if you don't provide a link for those who may not be familiar with that specific initialism. (though aware of the page, I wasn't familiar with that one myself)) Beeblebrox (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I can't see any evidence that the rune is ever used inverted. Is a 6 the same as a 9?

CPAC chairman Matt Schlapp has made the following statement on Twitter: "Stage design conspiracies are outrageous and slanderous. We have a long standing commitment to the Jewish community. Cancel culture extremists must address antisemitism within their own ranks. CPAC proudly stands with our Jewish allies, including those speaking from this stage." https://twitter.com/mschlapp/status/1365765584810565636 Rubiscous (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

What does it matter whether it's used inverted or not? The stage was parallel to the ground, offering no indication whether it was right-side-up or inverted. The viewpoint depends entirely on where you are. For people walking out on the stage from the backstage area, it would appear right side up. Binksternet (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

It is not up to us to decide whether it matters how it is oriented. As expected this is going wider, Forbes has picked it up [1]. They go out of their way to make sure you know they aren't buying it and it's surely just an amazing coincidence, so hopefully that will satisfy some folks who want a "real" source.Beeblebrox (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I didn't realize there was a discussion on this. I would have participated before removing the content. Beeblebrox, please be mindful of WP:FORBESCON. A Forbes contributor is not a reliable source of information. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Other than Forbes, which, as you said, is a WP:FORBESCON, HuffPost (there is no consensus on the reliability of HuffPost in politics, but I think we should still consider it since it shows more sources are starting to cover it), TMZ (there is no consensus on TMZ either, but still, it shows there are several, un-unreliable sources that have covered it) and Slate have also covered it. Personally, I agree with Beeblebrox, and I think it's not really possible for someone to just randomly design a stage in the shape of the odal rune and for the organizers of the event not to realize it. Ahmad^talk 07:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I would nix the TMZ and Huff Post articles and just use Slate. Given the fact that only low-quality sources have reported on this conspiracy theory, we shouldn't have more than two sentences on it. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

As I expected, more sources are commenting on this issue, including Insider journalist Kelsey Vlamis republished by Yahoo News, also republished by Business Insider India. The right-wing news site OpIndia wrote an editorial piece in support of CPAC. And the source I used yesterday, The New Hampshire Gazette, was not "low quality", though it was short on detail and high on opinion. It's an established liberal newspaper. Binksternet (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet, You do realize that the Yahoo source is simply a reprinting of the Business Insider source? And, once again, Business Insider is a marginal source (RSP entry). I only use them for basic facts and never for contentious claims. They love reporting on clickbaity news like this. "The right-wing news site OpIndia wrote an editorial piece in support of CPAC". You're not really helping your cause here. Our own article on Oplndia states that the "website has published fake news and anti-Muslim commentary on multiple occasions...the IFCN-certified fact-checkers identified 25 fake news stories and 14 misreported stories published by OpIndia from January 2018 to June 2020." I find it very suspicious when fake news websites, and other low-quality sites like TMZ, Daily Kos, and Forbes contributors, all decide to report on the same story. It shows that this "incident" is pretty much a fabricated conspiracy theory meant to generate some revenue. As for the The New Hampshire Gazette article, it was pretty much all opinion. It's literally a left-wing satirical editorial written by an anon author. And it contains exactly one throwaway line about the CPAC stage at the very end. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The Business Insider writer is staffer Kelsey Vlamis who is a career journalist, not considered unreliable. The piece by Vlamis is fine for us to use. Binksternet (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

You're missing the point. I'm not saying that the writer is unreliable. I'm saying that Business Insider is a marginal, clickbaity source. Though, it's certainly better than OpIndia, TMZ, or any of the other garbage sources reporting on this conspiracy theory. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The CPAC stage discussion is certainly bringing traffic to this article and it should be ensured that all other parts of it are up to date, well sourced and accurate. I think certainly the debate right now is reaching levels where it is notable right now, but as always an argument could be made that it won't be notable half a year from now... Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

This should be removed. It doesn't look like material that will pass a 10 year test. If there were any evidence that this was deliberate then it may be due but right now it appears this was inadvertent and sources unsympathetic to CPAC are running with it, perhaps for click bait ad revenue reasons. So far no one is arguing this was done deliberately. This article is about the symbol itself and contains sections about those who choose to use it and why they do so. An inadvertent use in this article comes across as trivia and thus, even if it were due for inclusion on Wikipedia, would not be DUE here. Finally, there is currently no consensus for inclusion on the CPAC article where this material is more central. If there isn't consensus for weight there then it's illogical to assume it has more weight for inclusion here. Springee (talk) 12:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Springee, you mentioned WP:DUE. How does that policy relate to whether or not the resemblance was deliberate? –dlthewave ☎ 15:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Because doing it deliberately would tell us something about the organization. Inadvertently means this becomes trivia. ONUS is policy and WEIGHT is based not just on mentions in RS but how the material relates to the article etc. If this was so obvious why did it take two days for a random Twitter account to make the connection? Why wasn't it mentioned the first night? This is related to something we have discussed before. Just because people mention A in context of B doesn't mean B is DUE on the article about A. So far no one is suggesting this was a deliberate association so why would we use this article to in anyway imply CPAC is trying to use this symbol? Honestly, trying to include content like this is a reason why editors say Wikipedia has an anti-conservative bias. This is not encyclopedic content yet people want to include it. Springee (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I love these conspiracies where people supposedly put symbols of hate out in public view for everyone to see with the assumption that somehow only the correct people are going to notice, and that once someone else notices all intent is denied as if they are ashamed of supposed deeply held beliefs. Idrawrobots (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

That's pretty much how gaslighting works. Convince the other party they are the crazy one. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the material. At this point we know this was not an intentional likeness. This makes the material UNDUE as the other examples are all intentional use. Additionally, the RfC related to this use here [[2]] is bordering on consensus to exclude vs no-consensus. While that doesn't mean there is consensus to exclude here it makes any claim of consensus to include (required to add this content) hard to support. Springee (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

"At this point we know this was not an intentional likeness."

We "know" nothing of the sort; you don't seriously think CPAC would admit to designing a stage with a Nazi symbol, do you? It's highly unlikely that this was not intentional on someone's part; that's an incredibly bad design, with gaps that just cry out for a presenter to fall into. Stage designers have opined that this was either intentional or the most incompetent stage design ever. That said, we can't say it was intentional without WP:RS, which we don't have. However, I see no reason to ignore the controversy. I won't reinstate the material, of course, but I disagree that we need to simply remove references to the controversy.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 16:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

There is zero evidence that this was intentional. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say we had evidence it was intentional. After all, once they were busted, don't you think they'd lie? I said we don't "know" that it was not an intentional likeness. Considering the number of neo-Nazis who support the same people supported by CPAC, it's not an unreasonable suspicion.

That's why I said I believe references to the controversy should be in the article; not because there's proof that the stage looked like a Nazi symbol, but because there was substantial controversy about the accusation. The link you shared includes a link to a WaPo article, which is a pretty WP:RS.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 23:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. We don't include every faux media controversy. We write articles from a historical perspective. Making outlandish claims without providing a shred of evidence amounts to a conspiracy theory (as stated by the source I linked). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, good grief #rolleyes. Just because it's not been proven doesn't mean it's not a reasonable hypothesis. It's hardly a "faux media controversy." Again, I'm not saying it's true, I'm saying the controversy was a real thing and deserves to be included in the article, since it was reported in the media.

However, for some reason, it appears nothing I say will convince you, so I'm going to stop. Congratulations.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's examine your theory. Design Foundry said they created this stage design along with several other proposals. CPAC accepted this one vs the others. Now if we assume CPAC wanted the rune likeness are you suggesting DF was a willing partner? Lets assume DF wouldn't want to knowingly create the likeness. So now CPAC must have tricked DF into creating this stage likeness. And finally, why would they want to do this? So let's assume they do want to court neo-Nazis. Is this likely to help? It apparently was too obvious since it was discovered by a non-Nazi and CPAC suffers reputational harm because of it. If neo-Nazi outreach was their intent wouldn't it make more sense to stay on the down low? Anyway you slice it the only explanation that makes sense was the one that made sense from the very beginning, this was inadvertent. Springee (talk) 23:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Apparently my saying I was going to stop wasn't good enough for Springee, so I'm drawn back into this fray.

I reiterate I'm not presenting a "theory;" I'm pointing out that there was substantial media coverage and that makes it noteworthy and relevant.

That said, I find the hypothesis plausible, and so apparently did the International Auschwitz Committee, among others. Attempting to discredit the hypothesis by piling assumption on assumption doesn't actually strengthen your point.

I'm not aware CPAC has suffered any reputational harm, either; perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concepts of dogwhistles and plausible deniability?

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 18:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Did they still find the hypothesis plausible after Design Foundry said they created the stage design? Are you kidding that CPAC's reputation didn't suffer? Perhaps it recovered once it was clear who designed the stage but the simple fact that sources suggest this could have been an intentional thing means they at least initially suffered a reputation hit. Springee (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Look, it seems you want to have it both ways. You want to say CPAC suffered a reputational hit and that this was a trivial, non-noteworthy controversy. Remember, I'm not saying Wikipedia should present the accusation as true, merely that it's noteworthy enough to be included in the relevant articles. This one, for example.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 21:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I said CPAC suffered a hit when people thought CPAC chose this stage design. It's like if someone thinks you did something shameful, that would negatively impact their impression of you. However, if they later found that it was a misunderstanding and you didn't do what ever it was, then your reputation would be restored. Let's zoom out, what does this mistaken identity have to do with the scope of the article. We have the Nordic aspect followed by the more recent groups that have chosen to use the symbol. CPAC isn't one of those sources so it's understandable that this isn't an example of a group using the symbol. A similar thing is true at the CPAC article where the scope is really what is CPAC and what are their positions etc. This is very much not something about CPAC so it doesn't need to be covered there. Springee (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Their reputation would have been "restored" if they had immediately called back their stagehands and reconfigured the stage shape to a simple diamond, which would have been fairly straightforward, and would have continued to fit their overhead rigging scheme. Instead, they complained loudly of unfair accusations and then proceeded to have Trump stand on the Odal rune and present his case for reelection in 2024. ("We've been doing a lot of winning," aside from losing the Senate majority, the House majority and all of the White House.) The hardcore pagan editorial board of The Wild Hunt asserts that the stage shape was intentional, despite the denials we have all heard. So nobody's reputation was restored. Binksternet (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

From the Forward article that first noted that the stage was designed by Design Foundry[[3]], According to the terms of the contract signed with Design Foundry, and shared with the Forward, the ACU approved the design but had no rights to change the design or dismantle the stage. “The designs, renderings, drawings, specifications, materials and other documents used or created as part of the proposal are owned by Design Foundry,” the contract reads. Springee (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

One phone call could have fixed that. Binksternet (talk) 03:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you know that or are you just assuming that? Honestly, this isn't a productive discussion. Springee (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I have helped build many stages, working as a general stagehand or as part of the audio crew. I've designed a couple of stages, working as a tech director with picky clients. I've helped reconfigure stages that suddenly aren't appropriate for whatever reason. Sometimes stages are designed to be rebuilt on the fly because the hotel or convention center air walls are scheduled to be drawn back after small sessions to reveal a larger room for the main plenary session, requiring a new staging arrangement completed within the short space of a coffee break for the attendees. I count myself as a fair-to-middling expert in staging, even though my real expertise is in live audio systems. Binksternet (talk) 05:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Include Talk:Conservative_Political_Action_Conference#Sources has some of the many major reliable sources covering of this, it's worth a mention. Reywas92^Talk 20:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

It is likely true that the CPAC stage controversy brought more eyeballs to this topic than any other single event. At this point, it would be ridiculous to remove the controversy from this page. We can discuss how to present the information, but removal is off the table. Binksternet (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The usual number of views for this page hovers around 300 per day. This number shot up to 90,000 on a single day because of the CPAC stage,[4] or about 57,000-per-day average during a four day period. That's basically two years worth of views in four days. Binksternet (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Yet the discussion on the CPAC page has a lot of replies and lean against inclusion. What are the odds it would be different here? Springee (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet, I've opened a RfC below. Since this is disputed content it should be out of the article until consensus for inclusion has been shown. We now have an official path for that to happen. Springee (talk) 01:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC CPAC stage Odal shape

Should the article mention the that some sources noted the CPAC stage had an appearance similar to a Odal? Springee (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Survey Stage

• Oppose on several grounds. First, this is out of scope for this article. This article talks about what the Odal is, it's nordic history and then examples of recent intentional uses of the symbol. The CPAC stage was an inadvertent likeness that was not intended by CPAC nor the designers of the stage. It says basically nothing about the Odal itself. Second this is a classic example of RECENT. Will this have any significance 10 years from now? An argument is made that this page had a spike in visits after the twitter storm and articles talking about the twitter reactions. That is understandable but that doesn't mean readers expect this gossipy controversy to be part of this article. I suspect most, like me, are checking this article simply because they don't know little about the Odal in the first place. That doesn't make that content DUE for this article. Finally, this crosses over from a encyclopedic article about the Odal into something that suggests our intent is to attach a stigma of nazi association to a group without having to say, "this is a neo-nazi group in disguise". That simply isn't something a reference encyclopedia should be doing. Springee (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support The CPAC stage resemblance has received widespread coverage and driven significant amounts of traffic to this article. The current version here provides fair coverage of the issue and may serve to correct any misconceptions that readers may have. Mentioning a controversy does not mean that we are taking sides or attempting to attach a stigma; swastika and Western use of the swastika in the early 20th century include many examples controversies related to the use of the use of swastikas in architecture without implying any ill intent. –dlthewave ☎ 02:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Frankly, I'm surprised by the argument saying our readers don't expect this controversy to be part of the article. Some 200,000 extra readers were attracted to this rarely visited topic because of the CPAC controversy. What were they looking for? Answers. They were looking for answers. The encyclopedia is about supplying answers, and we should satisfy our readers' curiosity by telling them a well-supported, measured, factual paragraph about the controversy. Binksternet (talk) 02:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support Whether intentional or not, this was widely covered in reliable sources and informed many people what the odal is. I'm not usually one to claim censorship, but Binksternet is absolutely right that with this many people coming to this page for a certain reason, it's highly suspect not to cover such reason. Reywas92^Talk 03:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support per other three supporters' arguments above. Ericoides (talk) 07:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support Barring an unlikely explosion in media interest in this symbol, this silly conspiracy theory will turn up in search results for Odal for years, unfortunately as such it belongs here. It will quickly fall off the radar when you search for CPAC so it doesn't belong at Conservative Political Action Conference. Rubiscous (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support Significant widespread coverage, context of usage notable and worthy of mention. Acousmana (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • What usage? All involved agree this was an inadvertent likeness thus not a "usage". The fact that it wasn't a usage is why this shouldn't be included. Springee (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Of course they agreed; do you think they're going to say "oh, yeah, we're courting the Nazi vote now"? As I said above, plausible deniability and dogwhistle. Not that it matters whether it was intended; the basis of whether it should be included is whether the controversy was notable. *Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 22:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support it was widely covered by reliable sources.Sea Ane (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support for a bucket of reasons I stated above. *Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 22:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose but with a caveat of conditional support IF the primary purpose of inclusion is to demonstrate how ridiculous today's journalism has become in the clickbait era, rather than it being used to imply anything nefarious about CPAC, the Republican party or the millions of people who support it. Is it DUE? No. Just because it's covered in online publications does not mean we are obligated to include it in WP. It not only fails WP:10YT, the real question is why would we include material that originated in a tweet? It is far from scholarly, and the fact that journalists are using Twitter for their articles speaks volumes about those sources. This is the kind of material one normally expects to see in a tabloid headline at the cash register in WalMart. Atsme 💬 📧 23:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

  • mischaracterization, someone noted a resemblance (stage layout, and less so the ceiling), it spread on social media, journalists clearly agreed that the resemblance was striking and worthy of mention - owing to the context (a party that has swung hard right and a former president that openly embraced neofacists). Ignoring the reality of contemporary US politics doesn't make this go away. Acousmana (talk) 12:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
    • I think you just hit a nail on the head... "contemporary US politics". That suggests we need to look at RECENT as well as NOTNEWS.

Springee (talk) 12:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• the extent of your willingness to delude yourself knows no bounds, the GOPs far-right lurch has historical merit - as does an overt display of Nazi symbolism by a mainstream American political party. Acousmana (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Let's keep the conversation civil, shall we? This is apparently a contentious topic but, while I agree with Acousmana about the "far-right lurch," we need to stay on-topic and AGF. *Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 15:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • For the record, I didn't mischaracterize anything, I simply expressed my views. That is how RfCs work, and how we move toward NPOV without suppressing views based on IDONTLIKEIT or political rhetoric, speculation, WP:GUILT, and/or POV pushing in lieu of compliance with NPOV, seeking balance by including what is DUE vs WP:NOT, and stating facts without juxtaposing, using SYNTH or including innuendos by biased media to imply that something is what it isn't - and that is exactly what we have here. The problem is not about ignoring anything, and in this case, we well within policy to ignore the absurd, which I consider "the reality" of this situation. Giving it legs is what I consider unencyclopedic and the heart of the problem that we are not only facing here, but overall as an integral part of WP's systemic bias and relatively recent biased trend that we've seen in our political articles, many of which are noncompliant with RECENTISM on top of everything else. It's why NPOV/N, BLP/N and RSN remain quite active. Atsme 💬 📧 16:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

    you state: "the real question is why would we include material that originated in a tweet?" so arguably a mischaraterisation, we are including material that is found in multiple WP:RSP secondary sources - many of which offer further contextual analysis. We are not citing Twitter, that would be a different matter entirely. While I agree scholarly sources would be preferable, that would be inconsistent with the kind of sourcing we are seeing across Wikipedia for recent political/popular culture content generally - so the WP:10YT argument is also moot. Acousmana (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose because not everything the media cover can be included in a neutral encyclopedia, if WP is neutral. When CPAC people explicitly say they are not Nazi, then it would be solely to the purpose of an ad hominem attack to mention their stage's resemblance to a Nazi symbol. Thomas Meng (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: I agree with @springee above--Steamboat2020
• Oppose: Inadvertent likeness does not belong in a list of uses, and a gaffe relating to CPAC most notable for the social media response does not warrant a mention on this page. The last gaffe to go viral on social media doesn't belong on an article like this, readers can learn about that over at Conservative Political Action Conference. To think that in 10 years some gaffe that briefly went viral on social media 10 years ago will be noteworthy information about the Odal itself is quite laughable to me, this is not only some extreme WP:RECENTISM, but even stranger in a WP:GLOBAL context. Volteer1 (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support per the "Support votes" above. Idealigic (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support per the widespread coverage in RLs. I also agree with Binksternet's argument that Wikipedia should cater to the information needs of its readers. Choosing not to include this despite the obvious link to heightened interest in the article would be putting politics before Wikipedia's purpose. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support. It's been extensively covered by RS. CPAC's usage of the symbol comes up as seven of the ten top Google results for "Odal". Readers are coming to this page looking for the information, and we ought to give them that information. Srey Sros^talk 19:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support. This is the most significant thing to ever happen to this page and I don't see why it shouldn't be included. The question of whether it was inadvertent is a red herring - the real question should be whether it's encyclopedic and notable. I think for both is yes Noteduck (talk) 05:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

  This page is not part of the topic and thus views to this page are not a valid way to establish weight. Springee (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support I agree it's unlikely that it was an intentional invocation of the rune, but that's not any part of the criteria for whether it should be included. It received tons of coverage in reliable sources, probably more than any other event involving the Odal rune ever has. It is therefore obviously the case that it should be included on this page. Loki (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The requirements for merely mentioning something somewhere in the article are not that high, and this does seem to have had sustained coverage over an extended period of time. Coverage of this outweighs most of the other things in the "modern use" section. --Aquillion (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion Stage

• More than 285,000 extra pageviews during the media coverage of the CPAC stage.[5] Normally, this page gets about 350 views per day, so 285,000 extra views is a big deal. Binksternet (talk) 04:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • It is pure speculation on your part that the extra page views=readers expect that content here. When I first saw this story I did a websearch for Odal and the Wikipedia entry comes up as a Google result sidebar. I clicked on it to see what this rune looked like. Thus your claim is that I expected the CPAC content here because I wanted searched for information on an Odal. How many of those views were just various articles linking to this page so readers would know what the heck an Odal is? I think this conflates people looking up information that is relevant to understanding a story about something else with people thinking that unrelated story needs to be here. Looking at the CPAC article it also saw a spike in visits yet there is no consensus to include this content there. Springee (talk) 04:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
    • The CPAC event was actually happening during the time period under discussion, so the extra page views at the CPAC article are explained by viewers having interests of every variety; certainly a bunch of people reading about it for the first time and wanting to know more about that event. The rune-shaped stage was just a small part of the total CPAC page views. On the other hand, the pageview statistics of this article show clearly how much interest came from the CPAC stage shape. Basically A LOT of interest. We would be derelict in our duties if we did not tell all of these readers about the CPAC stage controversy. Binksternet (talk) 05:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
      • No we wouldn't be. It is pure option on your part that people coming here expected to read about this false controversy vs just wanted to know what an Odal is. The fact that neither CPAC nor DF recognized the shape suggests that many or there were largely ignorant of the rune or it's usage. Springee (talk) 11:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
        • So the 285,000 extra pageviews were all from people who knew everything there is to know about the CPAC stage controversy. Ri-i-ight. Binksternet (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
          • You are saying they are coming here because of the CPAC story. Wouldn't it then be reasonable to assume they are already familiar with the CPAC story or even that they came here after reading the CPAC story? Our CPAC content is very abridged compared to actual articles regarding the controversy. Springee (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

When did clicks become so important to WP? We don't survive on clickbait, so why include it? I agree with Springee in that people may be coming here out of curiosity to know what an Odal (rune) is because I certainly didn't know. This article may also have attracted the attention of people who can't believe WP would include such tabloid trash in the encyclopedia - a rather goofus comparison that originated on Twitter, nonetheless. That speaks volumes to WP's scholarly approach, and even louder to NOTNEWS and INDISCRIMINATE. Atsme 💬 📧 00:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• an encyclopedia educates, people not understanding the significance of the Odal constitutes ignorance of history. Good that more are aware of its association with the Schutzstaffel thanks to CPAC. Acousmana (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

A number of people have mentioned that there was a lot of recent coverage and this caused a spike in page views but as Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d noted in their objection above, we don't have to cover every media controversy and we have no way to know if the increase in views was because readers expect this content to be included or just because many of the readers didn't know what an Odal was. I certainly was in the latter camp. Springee (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter why they come here, they should be able to read a brief, neutrally worded summary of the recent kerfuffle regardless of the visitor's quest. The ones who already know a great deal about it can skip that section, or they can compare that section to what they know, which reveals to them the parts that Wikipedia thought were most important. Binksternet (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

This is one of the most ridiculous objections in the history of the encyclopaedia. Why aren't the opposers similarly all over the talk pages of the Loch Ness Monster, God, phlogiston and all the other preposterous entities about which people have spouted so much nonsense for so long? "I oppose a page about God, as it doesn't exist and was just written about by some lunatic on a scrap of parchment. To give that person and their theory, which was proposed on an entirely superficial platform, any credence completely undermines the seriousness of the project." You want a real meaty false controversy? Look no further than the dispute about the nature of the Trinity or the surgeon's photograph. I mean, to even discuss a fake photo of a fake creature makes us the laughing stock of the whole world's internet. Only articles about concrete from now on, please. Ericoides (talk) 05:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Springee (talk) 10:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't an RFC customarily have a tag? Per WP:RFC. Are we missing a critical element? *Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 18:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The RfC has expired. While "of course" I find my arguments most persuasive ( :D ) the respondents were largely uninvolved and the difference in numbers between those who favored vs didn't puts this in the "consensus to include" camp. Springee (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

And I see it is included. Thank you for your commitment to Wikipedian principles!

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 23:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 2 May 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

---

Odal (rune) → Othala – Move towards consistency with other runic letters e.g.Thurisaz and Ansuz (rune) that use the Proto-Germanic name. Odal is not a historically attested term unlike Ēðel, due to its absence in Younger Futhark. Othala is a suitable name and is more widely used than Othila, the alternative but I'm open to discussion. Ingwina (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The key question is which is the WP:COMMONNAME in English, although WP:NATURAL and consistency are also considerations. What is this normally called in English-language reliable sources? Dekimasuよ! 06:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support—I've taken a look at Ingwina's contributions and feel that they are sufficiently focused that their knowledge in this area is sufficient to satisfy without caveat Dekimasu's concerns. I do not support the consistency argument per se, but support the nominator's proposal to rename. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Othala is commonly used in the literature. Binksternet (talk) 02:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mentions in scholarly sources I could find

On mobile—please excuse the formatting.

• "eþel"
  • Oberman, Miller. "The Old English Rune Poem." The Unstill Ones: Poems, Princeton University Press, 2017, pp. 32–35. Accessed 13 May 2022. limited GBooks preview
  • Old English Poetry: An Anthology
  • EJ Christie
• *ōtil Also names Anglo-Frisian ōs
• The modern German name for the runic letter ethel, Odal, was used as a title of a German nationalist magazine (p. 355, italics original) Clarke, Catherine A. M., et al. “Twenty-Five Years of ‘Anglo-Saxon Studies’: Looking Back, Looking Forward.” Disturbing Times: Medieval Pasts, Reimagined Futures, edited by Catherine E. Karkov et al., Punctum Books, 2020, pp. 317–50. Accessed 13 May 2022.

I did find Othala, I think? Perhaps in a runic magic book, which is why I didn't record the source. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Partisan Framing of “Far-Right Group” section.

By including the CPAC stage controversy in the same section as actual Neo-Nazi and Alt-Right group usage (and by sandwiching it between two different examples of deliberate Far-Right usage), we imply that CPAC is similar in either ideology or symbol usage to these other groups. This is factually false and even if we broadly hold this belief, it shouldn’t be reflected in the article. Conservative readers may interpret that by us including CPAC under “Far-Right Groups”, we hold that CPAC and traditional conservatives are aligned with Alt-Right and Neo-Nazi groups. CPAC and traditional conservatives strongly protest the notion of themselves being a part of the Alt-Right and vice versa. Including them in the same section implies that we lack objectivity and legitimacy. To put the debate to rest and simultaneously preserve our objectivity and legitimacy, we should move the CPAC controversy to a separate section with a non-partisan title such as “CPAC 2021 Stage Controversy” 2001:48F8:1006:499:E14B:738F:5605:B581 (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Are you User:FactCheckTruth? Doug Weller talk 16:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, for some reason it logged me out when I went to post this. Anyway, we really should move the section on CPAC to place where conservatives won’t get offended by its placement and lose trust in our edits, ya know what I mean? It looks pretty biased to lump them in with Neo-Nazis and the like. We should at least put it under the “other” subheading. FactCheckTruth (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I do see where you're coming from but I do also think that they are only included on this page as the winged variant is a far right symbol and thus people speculated whether that was why they used the shape. It makes sense to me that they are included in the section but maybe it should be more emphasised people tried link them with far right groups but the rationale wasn't confirmed? They could even be their own header? Also the winged variant is exclusively right wing (to my knowledge) so in my opinion, anything using it should go there, whether or not it's intentional e.g. with Topman. To me "Other" should be reserved for those where no one is trying to link it to the right and it isn't being used by Heathens. I'm not clued up enough on American politics to be the person to reword it but I'm happy to read over what you or someone else puts together. Ingwina (talk) 06:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I see where they're coming from too. I'm absolutely just spitballing here but what if we renamed the "Far-right groups" to "Nazi iconology"? That's what the section is about, and it doesn't imply that CPAC is a far-right group. The controversy is that they used what looked to be Nazi iconology, so it would fit into the scope of a section about Nazi iconology. I think that title would fit better anyways, as the Christchurch shooter was a singular person, not a far-right group. - Aoidh (talk) 07:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Maybe "Far-right iconography"? Gives more freedom to cover modern Neo-Nazi and other far-right usages that go beyond Nazi, without suggesting the exact images are Nazi. Iconography also seems to fit better than iconology by my understanding. Ingwina (talk) 07:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why I said iconology, when iconography is absolutely the right word and what I meant. Iconology is not the right word, please scratch that. Using far-right over Nazi is perfectly fine by me too, your reasoning for that makes perfect sense. - Aoidh (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Haha no fret, easily done. I've changed it to that and we can always revise it if a better proposal is made. Ingwina (talk) 11:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

But that section isn’t about shape of the symbol, it’s about use of the symbol. And people will still be offended by it so long as they read the section that says “far right” or “Nazi” usage and see their (increasingly popular might I add) political ideology mixed in among ideologies that they view as evil and are slanderously compared to despite the fact that they believe very different things. Plus, the a average person (myself included), will not read through that and think “they put the CPAC stage in there because the shape of the stage happened to look like the far-right version of the symbol”. they will think (as I did) “whoever edited that is biased. They’re trying to lump conservatives in with Nazis and Alt-Right groups to blur the line between them and score some cheap political points off of an accidental and poorly designed stage”. We really should just separate it. FactCheckTruth (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. That some readers may take offense to content is not a consideration in whether or not that content is appropriate for inclusion. The section is about the use of the specific version of the Othala rune exclusively used by far-right groups. The CPAC stage just happened to be that symbol, and there was a controversy as a result with people wondering why the stage just happened to be a far-right symbol. I also think you're doing a discredit to the reasoning ability of the average person, who will actually read the entry and see exactly what is being discussed. I don't see how any reasonable person could read a source like this and say that the controversy does not belong in a section about the far-right version of the rune, when that's literally what the entire controversy was about. - Aoidh (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The controversy was about people accusing CPAC of using that symbol intentionally and CPAC stating that it was an accident and no longer using the same design company to avoid a similar mistake. I’m not “discrediting the reasoning ability of the average person”. There is no picture on our article that shows the CPAC stage, the average person isn’t going to automatically know that it looked like the footed version of the rune. The header doesn’t even say “Far-Right Version of the Rune”, people will still likely take it to mean “usage of the rune by the far-right”. Also, I know we aren’t supposed to sugarcoat facts to avoid offense, but we also aren’t supposed to inject offensive accusations and untrue slander into articles. Lumping conservatives in with Nazis (and intentionally alluding to it) is inarguably untrue slander, no matter what your ideology is. And even if your ideology somehow does view conservatives as in league with Nazis, it shouldn’t be reflected in the article. FactCheckTruth (talk) 03:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The CPAC controversy stays in as it is relevant and on-topic. I agree "Nazi iconography" is the better header choice. Binksternet (talk) 04:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Between "Nazi" and "far-right" I do prefer Nazi since that's the origin of that version of the rune and all subsequent people/groups using it are doing so specifically because it was a Nazi symbol. But far-right works too, though I think Nazi is more accurate. - Aoidh (talk) 06:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm easy really on "Nazi" vs "Far-right". As I've said before, I think "far-right" makes it more suitable for discussing modern extremist groups using the rune. I think what should be clear in the article is that the rune is not a Nazi rune but a rune used by Nazis (and inspired by them other far-right groups). It's less my area of knowledge so I'll defer to people who know the nuances better than me! Ingwina (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I’m not saying that we should remove the CPAC section. If you had actually read and thought about anything I said, you would know that. I said we should MOVE IT somewhere that doesn’t come off as partisan. It’s a simple and reasonable request and the fact that so many of you are insistent on lumping CPAC and conservatives broadly in with Nazis says a lot about your alleged “neutrality”. FactCheckTruth (talk) 09:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)— FactCheckTruth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

After reverting the move of the disputed content into the "Other" section today by FactCheckTruth on the grounds of consensus so far on the talk page to have it remain in its current position, and receiving from them the following talk page message: "Then the consensus is wrong. If you look at the talk page, the debate has ended and no one has brought up a good reason as to why it should stay in that section. The “reasons” given have been nothing but thinly veiled partisanship.", I thought I would lay out my argument and see what people thought. 1) The winged version of the rune is almost exclusively used in a far-right/Nazi/neo-Nazi context and is not a form that exists in extant inscriptions prior to the modern period and should be discussed accordingly in the Modern usage#Nazi/Far-right iconography section. It is fair to consider it a far-right Nazi symbol due its origin, and near-exclusive usage in that context. 2) The CPAC stage takes on the form of a winged othala, rather than the predominant, iron age/ medieval form. It is for the sole reason that it resembled a Nazi symbol (be it intentional or not) that it received accusations of using Nazi/far-right imagery. 3) "Other" suggests it is neither of the two above categories and while it is not linked with Heathenry, the accusation of links to Nazi symbolism is its core trait and reason to be included in the first place. If it to be included (which has already received significant discussion and been decided upon), it would make sense to be discussed only in the context of the far-right iconography. I hope this all made sense and I look forward to hearing everyone's thoughts.--Ingwina (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Very well stated. I agree with this assessment, as the only reason the CPAC stage shape hit the media was its apparent similarity to the modern winged Nazi far-right version. The CPAC is certainly seen as far-right by many media, and simply "right wing" by others. The stage shape provoked media outrage in the sense that CPAC appeared to be acknowledging its racist and hateful side. Moving the material to "Other" is not appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

We all know that the media is biased. Anyone with even a hint of objectivity can see the blatant bias in nearly every media company, so why would we in our right minds classify CPAC as “Far-right” based on that? The vast majority of CPAC members and attendees hold very mainstream conservative opinions which are gaining popularity. CPAC never “acknowledged its racist and hateful side”. What does that even mean? They explicitly stated that they had nothing to do with the design and that the design company picked it and the design company stated that it was an accident and CPAC distanced itself from the design company. If you believe that media companies like NBC, CNN, etc are unbiased enough to be used as a basis for a supposedly neutral article, (along with the fact that you apparently haven’t read the full story) you are biased and your personal opinions (which are not shared by the majority of people) should be left out of the article. On the point that the section is assembled based purely on shape of the rune and not intention, the phrase “iconography” means the images or symbols used in art or the interpretation of these images. The CPAC stage designers (and the British clothing company for that matter) did not interpret the symbol to be a far-right or Neo-Nazi symbol. Thus, they shouldn’t be included with people who intentionally used the symbol because they share the same (or similar) interpretation of it. It doesn’t matter how some members of the public (a minority) interpreted the stage design. Most people aren’t out hunting for little screwups like this and then trying to pin it on an entire organization and ideology that aligns with nearly half of the US. The vast majority of people don’t think that CPAC (or conservatives in general) are Nazis or anything close to it. It’s absurd to even include it in this section. How about we give the CPAC stage controversy and the Topman controversy their own header titled something like “controversies”? It doesn’t take the side that it was totally unintentional and it also doesn’t take the side that says CPAC and Topman used it with the intent of showing support to Neo-Nazis. The intentional far-right uses will be kept out of the “controversies” header as they are uncontroversially meant as symbols of support for Neo-Nazism whereas the CPAC and Topman uses are still not agreed upon. FactCheckTruth (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

It seems like you're rehashing the same points over and over again, and since I've already answered those points I'll direct you to this comment, as it is just as much a response to this comment as the previous one. - Aoidh (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

No one here is claiming that the stage shape is proof of Nazi identity. The point is that these controversies you are speaking of are controversial because some people associated them with Nazi identity due to their use in Nazi iconography. Being included in the header does not mean the controversy was correct, only that to understand the reason for the controversy, it must be discussed in that context. The text does not give an opinion of the truth of each controversy, only outlines the events and arguments. I wouldn't be against these being in a subheader within Nazi/ far-right iconography if people thought that was better. Ingwina (talk) 06:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I am not rehashing the same arguments. Clearly you didn’t actually read my comment. You have not adequately nullified my reasons. I’m not writing about offending conservatives and I already explained that facts that offend people should be included but OPINIONS that offend people should not be included. This is an OPINION. Right there I proposed a reasonable and neutral compromise that doesn’t take sides and doesn’t give the appearance of taking sides. Clearly you didn’t read my full comment. It appears you are refusing to accept a compromise because you want to inject your opinion into the article. FactCheckTruth (talk) 06:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I made some changes prior to reading this section but I think CPAC and the clothing line should both be in other or we need an accidental association section. We have several different types of uses. We have deliberate association with far right, accidental use that was criticized due to association with far right and other uses. We shouldn't put accidental/incidental use in with deliberate use by far right groups. If the move to other is an issue then this should have a distinct subsection. Also, while we had a RfC that clearly said include CPAC, it didn't say where or how the content should be included. Putting it someplace that makes it clear this was not a deliberate use is fine and honestly the responsible way to do this. Trying to imply otherwise is an IMPARTIAL issue. Springee (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Building on what Springee and I have proposed today, does anyone have any issue with the Far-right iconography section having two subheadings, one with a title along the lines of "Open usage" and another with "Accused usage"? While I strongly think that it makes sense to discuss the CPAC stage and Topman in the context of the open usage, I think we all agree that they are still distinct in so far as they are not standing by the decision and do not openly espouse a Neo-Nazi identity, unlike the others. Subheading names would of course be up for discussion.--Ingwina (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking something like that myself. Perhaps instead of accused usage, "inadvertent usage" or "unintentional referencing" or similar. I would then move the Nazi icons up to the open/intentional usage section. Springee (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with “accused usage”. It doesn’t take the side that CPAC actually used it unintentionally. Personally, I think it was an accident but I think we should keep our opinions in either direction out of the article and make it clear that it’s an undecided controversy. The whole controversy is basically over but I don’t think that the public 100% agrees on what happened. Anyways, I second “Accused usage” or “Controversies” FactCheckTruth (talk) 05:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

So? Are we going to move it? FactCheckTruth (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Go ahead and do it. My read is there is enough support/no obvious objections to creating a subsection to separate deliberate use by far-right groups vs inadvertent use by groups that retracted/rejected the connection once it was presented to them. Springee (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it. I didn't rearrange the text/images just added the subheader because when I moved it below the Nazi images it didn't look right to me and seemed to detach it from its header section, but I have no objections if someone wants to go behind me and rearrange the images or whatever. - Aoidh (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved the images. It makes more sense to put them next to the Nazi use since they are listed as Nazi images. I also changed the header name since I think it's best to say that in both cases the usage was a likeness and wasn't deliberate. Springee (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)