Talk:Madison Cawthorn/Archive 2

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 July 2021
Under the “Elections” heading it states: In July 2020, at an event at the Texas border, Cawthorn declared, without evidence, that there was "a large group of cartels, kidnapping our American children and then taking them to sell them on a slave market, a sex slave market".[7]

Can you please erase “without evidence” ?

References: Natalie Jesionka wrote in an article in themuse.com called “Human Trafficking: The Myths and the Realities,” where she references the Polaris Project which studied this issue and found 100,000 to 300,000 children are forced into prostitution in US... and NBCNews.com reported in their article “First drugs, then oil, now Mexican cartels turn to human trafficking” which outlines how the cartels are making huge money trafficking sex slaves.

The proof is there and has been there. Stating that Cawthorn was unfounded and lacking proof of cartel sex trades is just plain untrue. Let’s remove that distinction please. It colors things incorrectly. Also I can find many more articles from “reputable” media about this subject with a simple Google search if you need even more proof.

Thank you for your time. -Cory 24.181.236.77 (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The sources only support the statement that "cartels sometimes participate in human trafficking of Americans". It absolutely does not support the statement that "Cawthorn saw a large group of cartels kidnapping our American children at the border." –– F ORMAL D UDE ( talk ) 03:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2021
Change "name list" to "name listed" Ncjones2020 (talk) 02:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Muboshgu (talk) 03:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Lineage from the 1780s
Please add Cawthorn claimed descent from Abraham Kuykendall. --2601:C4:C380:49E0:708E:2510:279C:4124 (talk) 01:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 September 2021
Madison Cawthorn is not a graduate of Patrick Henry college, and thus “withdrew” should be added to the “Alma mater field. Scarred2112 (talk) 07:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. This infobox officeholder template documentation does not provide guidance about when and how to use this parameter. See also Talk:Madison Cawthorn/Archive 1. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 October 2021
The article should contain the following disclosure, appropriately placed at the beginning or end.

“This article contains information that in great part was taken word for word, apparently without attribution from a Washington Post article titled:The making of Madison Cawthorn: How falsehoods helped propel the career of a new pro-Trump star of the far right. Thus, much of the information is derived from secondary, rather than primary sources and is subject to further fact checking.” 47.158.204.104 (talk) 06:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I'm not sure what section you're talking about being taken "word for word," but we prefer to use secondary sources, rather than primary. Editors should not be interpreting sources, rather, reporting on what reliable secondary sources say about a subject. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I did a quick review of the Post article, and I see no evidence of copyright violation. —C.Fred (talk) 12:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Trae Crowder
Not exactly a "in the media mention," but comedian Trae Crowder has taken notice of this page. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Lead should cover incendiary rhetoric and misinformation
This text should be in the lead: "During his candidacy and time in Congress, Cawthorn has been known for incendiary rhetoric, and pushing falsehoods and conspiracy theories. He had said he intended to use his position to be a messenger rather than a legislator, writing to his colleagues, "I have built my staff around comms rather than legislation."" The lead need to summarize what kind of politician Cawthorn is, in particular how his entire political persona is built around incendiary rhetoric. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I could not disagree more, whether it's this man or anyone else. The lead should be simply a defining summary of the most basic facts about a notable individual. Would you like to be eulogized according to your greatest perceived faults or most annoying characteristics in the sight of others, especially by your critics? I should think not. The same applies here. It may not be extraneous detail, but such supplemental information is reserved for other parts of the article. - JGabbard (talk) 01:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Added the comms part, and his accident. Frankly though, this guy hasn't done much inside or outside of Congress. Incendiary rhetoric may indeed be a defining trait.  starship .paint  (exalt) 07:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * - please explain your revert. Do you object to both additions (and why)?  starship .paint  (exalt) 01:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ...?  starship .paint  (exalt) 10:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No reply while active so I'm going to restore the communications part, at least.  starship .paint  (exalt) 02:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Very bias
Why are these “allegations” listed in this section? Add his personal life info there as you do with most public figures. The allegations should be listed last on someone’s page. There’s more to a persons life than allegations. You should know better. Saddario25 (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Lied about his friend leaving him to die in the car
According to his own dad, his friend risked his life to pull Madison out of the car, seems to be pattern with him lying about his friend, lying about his aspirations and rejection from the military..

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaabk/madison-cawthorns-claim-about-naval-academy-creates-false-impression/ar-BB17RyY5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZIi_f8EeFE&t=139s

Actually, he was confused because he was unconscious. After his friend explained what actually happened, they’ve became very close again. The man lost his legs because his friend fell asleep at the wheel. Is he not entitled to make a mistake? Saddario25 (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Worse, the loss of everything from the waste down. At 18 years old. Talk about facing adversity in this life. Saddario25 (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 September 2021
Request to add to Tenure the coverage of Cawthorn carrying knives into school board meetings.

On September 13, 2021, Cawthorn was photographed with a fixed blade dagger mounted under the seat of his wheelchair and a serrated folding dagger clipped in his right pants pocket at a school board meeting in Henderson County. The knives are also visible in photos posted by Cawthorn on Instagram of his appearance at the Polk County school board meeting. In North Carolina, it is a class 1 misdemeanor to bring a weapon on educational property.

On September 16, 2021, the Henderson County Sheriff’s Office said they would not charge Cawthorn. Cawthorn was made aware that the administrative office building where the meeting was held is classified as educational property.

In an article by Olivia Nuzzi with NY Mag from September 19, 2021, it was revealed that Cawthorn said during their interview, but not featured in the original piece ran January 16, 2021, that he always has a hunting knife on him. The article also reveals that the dagger can be seen mounted under his chair in a photograph taken on January 6, 2021. Avh6663 (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. This seems pretty low-importance and WP:UNDUE. There's also a WP:SYNTH problem with In North Carolina, it is a class 1 misdemeanor to bring a weapon on educational property, as it's cited to a primary source. It seems like a pretty minor kerfuffle that will likely not have any lasting significance. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Resubmitting request for Cawthorn's multiple alleged possession of weapons on school grounds. It seems relevant to the page due to the media coverage and his previous attempt to take a gun on a plane. Updated information below.

On September 13, 2021, Cawthorn was photographed with a fixed blade combat dagger clipped in his right pants pocket at a school board meeting in Henderson County. The combat daggers are also visible in photos posted by Cawthorn on Instagram Story of his appearance at the Polk County school board meeting.

North Carolina General Statute 14-269.6. makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor to carry a spring-loaded projectile knife, while N.C.G.S. 14-269 forbids the concealed carry of a “bowie knife, dirk, dagger,” or “other deadly weapon of like kind," making it a Class 2 misdemeanor. Bringing a switchblade or dagger on educational grounds is a Class 1 misdemeanor, according to N.C.G.S. 14-269.2.

On September 14, 2021, Cawthorn appeared to have at least one of the daggers on him while leading an outdoor protest at the Johnston County school system’s headquarters. Cawthorn was stopped at the entrance by officers because of the combat dagger, ”which was forfeited upon entry, placed in a secure area, and returned to him upon departure," schools spokesperson Caitlin Furr said. While inside the school board building, the dagger sheath underneath his wheelchair appeared to be empty.

On September 16, 2021, the Henderson County Sheriff’s Office said they would not charge Cawthorn. Cawthorn was made aware that the administrative office building where the meeting was held is classified as educational property. Later that day Polk County Sheriff Tim Wright said he had spoken to attendees of the week’s meeting, including the school board and found no evidence that Cawthorn possessed a weapon at the Polk County Middle School.

In an article by Olivia Nuzzi with NY Mag from September 19, 2021, it was revealed that Cawthorn said during their interview, but not featured in the original piece ran January 16, 2021, that he always has a hunting knife on him. The article also reveals that the dagger can be seen mounted under his chair in a photograph taken on January 6, 2021.

On October 5, 2021, Congressman Cawthorn paid a visit to Veritas Christian Academy. In a post on his official U.S. Representative twitter account he stated “I loved speaking to local elementary students today about our government and what it’s like to serve in Congress!”. In the accompanying photos, one shows the switchblade combat dagger clipped in his right-hand pants pocket. The post was taken down shortly after commenters pointed out the weapon. The same day Cawthorn also spoke at a Turning Point USA event hosted at Western Carolina University. In photos and videos taken by attendees, Cawthorn had what appeared to be a switchblade combat dagger in his pocket in the health and human sciences conference room of the university. As of October 8, 2021, WCU police have not sought charges.

Avh6663 (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Six paragraphs, mostly cited to a single writer from a local paper, a tweet from a random person, and a primary source law description. It also cherry picks the combat dagger phrasing from that single writer from a local paper, and even drops the quotes around combat, presenting it as a fact that the guy was carrying a "combat dagger," whatever that actually is Please seek consensus for an addition like this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

This is the most ridiculous attack on a man in a wheelchair. You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself. Embarrassing this is. Saddario25 (talk) 23:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Very biased
Very biased. Do you write crap like this for liberal politicians? 71.34.96.83 (talk) 05:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, IP editor. Please point out specific examples of bias, linking to reliable sources that provide a contary view. Cullen328 (talk) 05:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

The bias is in his you laid out his page. The most important things in this mans young life are not “ He claimed the 2020 presidential election was fraudulent until conceding in a January 23, 2021, interview that it was not.” Why is that on the very top of his photo? Then go to the body of his page? The first thing you have is “he describes himself as Christian” and then a whole body about allegations against him from school? You realize he was in a wheelchair in college right? And I will remind you, allocations are not proof of guilt. Put the allegations in a bottom subsection if you must put them, not in the body of his page. Have more respect and integrity please. I rely heavily on Wikipedia as many do, don’t dilute it with political agendas. Saddario25 (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Go to any liberal politicians page and please tell me you don’t understand what’s being said about biased information. Saddario25 (talk) 23:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

This entire article has been written in a Left-Wing Biased manner.Easeltine (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC) Madison Cawthorn has stated on the House floor that Speaker Pelosi is NOT God.1. Also, a person who is Far-Right, would not call for Vice President Harris and Speaker Pelose to use the 25th Amendment, and remove President Biden due to problems with Dementia, leaving Vice President Harris as President.2. There are some issues that Madison Cawthorn makes sense, he is rational on some subjects. <1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JiWPF1oJnA> <2.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Enn9mzMUwaE>Easeltine (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 December 2021
Madison Cawthorn is now divorced. Change his spouse section to “Cristina Bayardelle ​(m. 2020; div. 2021)” 2601:98A:200:3810:F1DD:515A:6DC4:CADF (talk) 05:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Divorced
He’s newly divorced. Remove his spouse, or write the dates of his marriage in that field. 100.34.137.90 (talk) 14:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Cawthorn has stated his intent to divorce, not that the divorce has happened. —C.Fred (talk) 14:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Allegations of Sexual Misconduct
Why are the allegations worthy of being included in the lead section? For example, sexual misconduct allegations against Congresssman Bobby Scott are not mentioned in the lead. The same is true with house delegate Michael San Nicolas. What makes this situation different? Viktory02 (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you. Saddario25 (talk) 23:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

If you two are upset about other articles then go edit those articles. The lead summarizes the content of the body. Saddario25 please familiarize yourself with how this site's policies work before forming very strong opinions on whether or not an article is in compliance with said policies. 108.174.175.69 (talk) 06:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not a matter of being upset. It's a question about what's the difference? What is the consensus on the best policy for these instances? Viktory02 (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The proper course policy wise is to try and have the lead follow MOS:LEAD by having it summarize the text of the body. If the text of the body itself is objectionable then you'd go about trying to remove that, after which the lead would also be adjusted. If you're aware of articles that have problems with a lack of content in their lead sections then ideally you should try and fix those articles, but changing other articles to resemble them would just be lowering the standards of those others. 108.174.175.69 (talk) 05:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Article updates
I request adding a minor update in References.

Source #19 is a long court deposition. Please add note that the quote used in this article is on page 15. A simple “pp. 15” would suffice Zingerslinger (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 February 2022
Remove his age because it is out of date. Birthdate is enough. Dreed503 (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. I don't see a reason to remove the age. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The Birth date and age template is standard for infoboxes, and it updates the age automatically. —C.Fred (talk) 04:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Article is politically slanted
It's obvious the editor/ author is slanted. Everything they say maligns Mr. Cawthorn. 2603:8000:8E01:D02:5CA5:45B8:B707:B81A (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * How so? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The comment already indicated how so. It is completely negative and editorialized with such unimpeachable sources as Buzzfeed to support unsubstantiated claims and other slander that could only be posted by anonymous editors working behind the shield of a platform. One only needs to compare an article about a controversial figure from the party that you support to see the difference. But the upshot is that Wikipedia's reputation is damaged more than Cawthorn's. And the discourse of Wikipedia bias extends to a founder of the website. If you put your integrity behind articles of this despicable quality, you have none. At the end of the day, he will continue to be the youngest congressperson, while you will be happy with your little barnstars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.71.28.174 (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I second this. Most of this article is hardly neutral.  For example, calling someones views "conspiracy theories" implies that they should be dismissed without being considered or examined, and that the person in question is kinda nutty.  Even people with kinda crazy ideas aren't treated or talked about like this, especially in a neutral setting.2603:8080:BA01:2293:4EED:B60D:B60E:2CC3 (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You've going to have to give us specifics backed up with WP:RS and not compare this article to any others as nobody else is Madison Cawthorn. Also don't bother bringing up discredited former "founders" of Wikipedia who have had no involvement with this site for two decades, let alone anything to do with this article. "Conspiracy theories" have been considered and examined and so now can be dismissed, yes, that is what conspiracy theories are. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi I’m just reading this article now and I agree it feels a little slanted. For example the phrase “As a congressman, he focuses on messaging instead of legislation.” In the lede feels slanted and also I don’t know what that means. How can we explain the way that he does a lot with messaging rhetoric and also make a claim about that in comparison to his legislative record. I skimmed the source so maybe he admits that this is his thing. But we should have an attribution to what that means.

I agree that there is also a lot of weight put on the things he has done that are related to sexual assault and white nationalism. Hopefully more motivated people can flesh out the rest of what his history. 02:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.43.53 (talk)  152.3.43.53 (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC) 02:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC) 02:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)~

Politically Biased. Not Objective.
The contributors to this article explore every possible angle of Cawford’s alleged sexual assault history and ties to white nationalism in exhausting detail.

But spend very little time reviewing his rise to prominence in politics and his political stances. Topics that should be at the forefront of an article on someone in Congress.

This article is more a defamatory “hit job” and an objective accounting and biography of Cawford’s life. 2600:387:C:7010:0:0:0:C (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC) ‘’ I think that is true. It would be great if you could add more to that area about his rise etc. that way it isnt more heavily weighted to the other stuff

02:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.43.53 (talk)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 March 2022
You may want to mention in his "Personal Life" section that on March, 3, 2022 he was arrested and charged with driving with a revoked licence after previously being pulled over for speeding twice. Sunnyboi18 (talk) 09:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. &#128156; melecie   talk  - 10:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Done Many news articles describing this, I tried to keep it fairly brief. -- M.boli (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 March 2022
"Führer" should not simply be described as "a German term meaning "leader"". While this is true, it pretty much always refers to Hitler. The text should read "In the post, he called Hitler Führer, Hitler's official title (meaning "leader" in German), and called the site a place of "supreme evil"." Thanks! QueenofBithynia (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

✅ I agree. The main point of the incident is that Cawthorn referred to Hitler by his official title. I used alternate language, but tried to be clear on the point. -- M.boli (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 March 2022 (2)
Every reference to allegations made against Cawthorn should have "without evidence" added to them, or the "without evidence" added to Cawthorne's allegation of election rigging/fraud should be removed, as adding that modifier only to one shows unreasonable bias against him. 206.195.157.47 (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Except for all of the evidence, you mean? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

“Orgy” comments
Cawthorn’s colleagues are apparently very upset with him for publicly insinuating they are involved in orgies and drug use: 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:2EB0 (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are. But most newspapers do not appear to be reporting his controversial remarks, and unless they get more widespread coverage we would not include them in the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Just put Madison Cawthorn in any search engine to see viral mainstream and sidestream coverage. I don't know how he became a U.S. Representative!--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this to the talk page. In fact I did just that, at Google News, to see if his "orgies and drugs" comments are getting much coverage. They aren't. I did not find anything at all from the regular, mainstream press - just Vanity Fair, Business Insider, and RealClearPolitics. That's why I reverted your addition (which was sourced only to Stephen Colbert). I think we should leave this out unless and until it gets broader coverage. I didn't revert it a second time after you re-added it, but I'd like to hear what other people think. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , there are RS on this: – Muboshgu (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's a direct link to the video where he made the comment, timestamped where the convo starts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEEpnrZgoJU?t=129 Avh6663 (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to look for local coverage and I'm not finding quite so much. There's this one, but I don't know that the N.C. newspapers are touching this. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

TV comic ridicules Madison Cawthorn is hardly encyclopedia-worthy. Editing that into Wikipedia was a mistake in judgment, reverting it back in is hard to distinguish from vandalism. Saying stupid outrageous things is his brand. If Cawthorn's latest is newsworthy it will be covered in the legitimate news.

Having said that, there is an NYT article now. Cawthorn has retracted his stupid outburst. -- M.boli (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the links above, Muboshgu. I don't know why they didn't show up in my search but they are more than enough to support including it. I will work on adding something that is added to these sources instead of Stephen Colbert. Give me a few minutes to draft the language. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I have put a paragraph in the "Tenure" section. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Esto es un prontuario, no un artículo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:150:11C:268A:E0A6:511F:90D8:E265 (talk) 01:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

"Alma mater" field needs the qualifier "dropped out"
The article states: "During the fall 2016 semester, Cawthorn attended Patrick Henry College, studying political science, but earned mostly D grades and dropped out." If this is true, the line: "Alma mater: Patrick Henry College" is grossly misleading. The general understanding of "Alma mater" statements is that the person has graduated from that institution. Thus, please change:

Current text: "Alma mater Patrick Henry College"

New text: "Alma mater Patrick Henry College (dropped out)"
 * ✅ Cannolis (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

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)
 * , 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. I am not advocating for including it at this time. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 28 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)
 * ✅ 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)
 * , 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 others. 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)
 * I think that this quote and how it is interpreted or misinterpreted does not add to an understanding of Madison Cawthorn's views or history. His view on abortion is already referenced. If needed, better quotes could be found. Regarding the quote: the body is a clay/earthen vessel which holds something godly is a New Testament biblical metaphor. Once you know the metaphor, XP6287's reading of Cawthorn's statement seems correct to me. -- M.boli (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Timeline of Sexual Video Circulation and Eight Minute Twitter Video
Small detail but the 8 minute video released on Twitter, 4:12pm 5/4/22, was before the video of him thrusting was leaked around 6:30pm. He was referring to the video of Stephen Smith placing his hand on Cawthorn's crotch. Proposing it be changed to "He called the video "blackmail" on Twitter after he had released an eight-minute video addressing other controversies." Avh6663 (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Age when injured.
Seems to me that if he was born in August of 1995 that he would have only been 17 during spring break of 2014. 98.115.178.176 (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


 * People born in 1995 had their 18th birthday in 2013. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


 * How can someone born in August of 1995 be 17 during ANY portion of 2014? You would become 5 years old in August of 2000. You would be 14 years older than that (i.e. 19, since 5+14=19) in August of 2014 (i.e. 14 years later than August 2000). Since you wouldn't be 19 years old UNTIL August of 2014, you'd be 18 years old in the SPRING of 2014 (or on January 1 of 2014, or December 31 of 2013, hence my question as to ANY portion of 2014)) because Spring is earlier than August and so you wouldn't be 19 yet. Please explain the logic of the assertion that he was only 17 in August 2014.2600:8804:8800:11F:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 05:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Article at this time is sketchy on his ex-wife Cristina Bayardelle
The manner in which he got fixed up with Cristina Bayardelle is not merely salacious but relevant, because the manner of their meeting lies in back of an entirely credible surmise as to how he became a mouthpiece for Putin's anti-Ukrainian rants. The manner in which it was arranged that he meet Cristina Bayardelle should receive a lot more detail in this article. It's not in the least bit salacious, while it does bear directly on his activities and positions as Representative in Congress.2600:8804:8800:11F:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 05:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson


 * What extra details do you think we should include? And how does Cristina Bayardelle relate to Cawthorn's comments on Russia/Ukraine? This message was very vague. Endwise (talk) 07:03, 16 May 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. 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)

It is hilarious that certified election results are now "left-wing propaganda."  -Jord gette  [talk]  18:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Bush-Gore 2000 agrees with you. Of course the left never ever questions those results. 93.206.58.115 (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Big difference between Gore and Trump is that Gore conceded, did not try to lead a coup, and doesn't complain about losing any time he's near a microphone. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2022
Change "He has been criticized for his controversial rhetoric,[4] including falsely asserting that the 2020 presidential election was fraudulent,[5] although he has backtracked on the claim.[6]" to "He has been criticized for his controversial rhetoric,[4] including falsely asserting that the 2020 presidential election was fraudulent;[5] he has backtracked on the claim.[6]"

As it stands, the sentence suggests that backtracking on the claim makes the criticism unwarranted. It seems unlikely that this is the intent. The sentence is just badly written. Afranta (talk) 03:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I think your point is correct. But after a few minutes of google-searching, I ended up entirely editing out the sentence about false 2020 claims. It is evident that he kept spreading the story any even after backtracking in an interview, simply stopping at "backtracked" does not cover it. So it's a needlessly complicated story for a lede sentence. Leaving it at "criticized for his controversial rhetoric" seems the right level of detail for a lede. --12:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

New lead image


Hello, I'm asking if this portrait of Cawthorn could be use as the new lead image, as I see that the current lead image dated back in 2020, which means that Cawthorn was still Rep-elect while this new one is the one when he's already sworn into office (2021). So I'm asking your opinions on this, thanks. DelawareMatt (talk) 00:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * It's pretty standard to use the congressional portrait with the American flag in the background. Yes, it's from 2020, as often the Rep-elects take their photos as part of pre-inauguration orientation during the lame duck period. I don't see any benefit to changing the image. If it ain't broke... – Muboshgu (talk) 00:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Constitutional conservative
Last sentence of 1st paragraph:
 * He describes himself as a Christian and a constitutional conservative.[2]

"Conservative" in that sentence is linked to Conservativism in the United States, but there is apparently a specific branch of this called "Constitutional conservatism", which the conservatism article links to Constitutionalism in the United States. Otoh, Constitutional conservative redirects to Conservativism in the United States. So I was going to suggest fixing the pipelink in the Cawthorn article, but I then also noticed that the text of the cited Time Magazine article doesn't say anything about constitutional conservativism. There is also video on the page that I didn't watch, so maybe it gets mentioned in there, but if so, the cite should say so specifically.

Could someone who understands this stuff straighten out the sentence and the links? I know about the People's Front of Judea but that's about it. Thanks. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:738F (talk) 01:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2022
In the section "14th Amendment challenge," please change the word "prove" to the following phrase in quotes, which is quoted (in one of the existing references) from the applicable North Carolina law: "show by a preponderance of the evidence". Thanks. 67.188.1.213 (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Sure enough, that is in the AP article. Thank you. -- M.boli (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The article uses the deliberately misleading term “sexual video” to describe a video of Madison horse playing with his cousin. Democrats have weaponized Wikipedia to the point of ruining it.
Even one of the founders of wikipedia has pointed out how bias is ruining the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:C401:72D0:2968:C8FD:274D:99F8 (talk) 05:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

The video of him wrestling with cousin is not sexual. 136.26.42.97 (talk) 08:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, we still have List of soups, so surely Wikipedia isn't entirely ruined. CAVincent (talk) 09:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I find the bit about Mulligatawny to have a left-wing bias – Muboshgu (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Who doesn't thrust their naked crotch into their cousin's face as a way to say "good morning"? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Talk pages aren't forums for general discussion about the subject of the article. Endwise (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Of the two sources in the article, HuffPost called it a "nude thrusting video", and The Hill called it "A video [...] in which Cawthorn could be seen nude". I think calling it a "sexual video" while sources don't is a BLP violation, so I've changed the section heading to "Circulation of nude video". Endwise (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a fair change. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Reversed April deletion
This was of material properly sourced and of demonstrable public interest. I didn'[t realize it had been scrubbed until minutes ago. We're not in the business of obscuring questioned public behavior by candidates,even though this officeholder's career will likely be over in January.. Activist (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Madison_Cawthorn/Archive_2. What's the "demonstrable public interest" in photos of these cruise party games? Endwise (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Freedom Caucus
Why isn't his membership in the House Freedom Caucus listed under the Caucuses section? 2600:1700:5230:8880:6CED:6101:6B38:43FE (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)