Talk:Othala

message: *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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: **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)
replies: text: **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)
replies: text: **: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)
thread_title: Survey Stage

message: :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)
replies: text: Odal (rune) →  – 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Requested move 2 May 2022 

message: 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
*  (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)
thread_title:  Mentions in scholarly sources I could find 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Partisan Framing of “Far-Right Group” section.