Talk:Conservative Political Action Conference

message: 74.232.5.105 and I really seem to disagree on whether the reaction of the audience was "laughter" or "hissing," and I would appreciate it if other editors would offer their opinions. Also, should the fact that many high-profile politicians from both parties condemned her comments be included in the article? Discuss! Dunne409 05:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I did watch the video myself, and agree that the reaction was laughter; please help protect this article from vandals who may want to distort the facts. I suppose I also agree that the information about condemnation should not be in the article. Dunne409 06:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I was writing the exact same sentiment (about watching out for the "pro-hissing vandal" (LOL). He just now tried to change it back to "hissing" and called me an asshole -- right on the article page. I think the facts show that they laughed and applauded. I detest vandals. 68.33.185.185 06:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it's a good idea to keep Coulter's '07 speech off of the CPAC page and make reference to it on her page. That's how it is now.
Andrewman327 (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Ann Coulter's Comments at 2007 CPAC

message: I have removed the bit about Matthew Sanchez being outed as a gay porn star (although I did leave the fact that he received an award that night, with the link to his entry intact). This had absolutely nothing to do with the proceedings of CPAC 2007, no matter what your political persuasion. 66.75.153.15 04:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Matthew Sanchez

message: Something could be said about the New Republic article by Stephen Glass on the 1997 edition. --Error (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I found a story about him.  I don't see where it would fit, but feel free to refer to him.
Andrewman327 (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Stephen Glass and CPAC 1997

message: Some anons are edit-warring over whether to include, in the introductory section, the John Birch Society's co-sponsorship of the 2010 conference.
I think the fact is worth including but isn't important enough for the introductory section.  It belongs in the section on the 2010 conference, where I had placed it before the edit war began.
I'm removing it from the introductory section.  To the anonymous editors, please stop reverting each other and discuss the subject here. JamesMLane t c 11:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you.  The introductory section is for people who hear somebody mention CPAC and don't know whether it's a political conference or a chocolate dessert popular in the American southwest.  I'll probably put the John Birch Society under the forthcoming section on CPAC's role in addressing controversy. Andrewman327 (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: John Birch Society

message: I removed the Sentence stating that Jon Stewart mocked Glenn Beck on the Daily Show. What Stewart or anyone else says or does it not relevant to this piece.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.121.73 (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Jon Stewart

message: I am in the process of overhauling the article.  I have already made substantial changes, but here is a list of things I plan to do as I have the time.  Let me know what you think and feel free to take care of some of them yourself.  I'm still trying to figure out how to describe each year's CPAC without making it seem like lots of boring lists.
*General intro similar to how it is now.
**The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC),  ), is an annual political conference attended by conservative activists and elected officials from across the United States
*Significance of CPAC (in the media, American politics, conservative movement, etc.).
*CPAC logistics
**Attendance
***Numbers have been growing in recent years.  I will add a graph with the number of attendees per year.  Here's the data set from which I will generate the graph and you can edit it or create the graph by yourself: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AmEiMVBkov-xdEdncWpWdHpzNmFfNGhLSElBNDRqRlE&hl=en
***Roughly half of attendees are college students. 
**Descriptions of all awards given
***Jeane Kirkpatrick Academic Freedom Award
***Ronald Reagan Award
***Defender of the Constitution Award
***Blogger of the Year Award
**Straw poll
*Role of CPAC as a means of settling disputes regarding what the conservative movement should stand for (e.g. tea partiers versus social conservatives and attendees in the 70s who wanted to found a 3rd party versus GOP supporters)
*Early CPAC history.
*Recent CPACs
**CPAC 2011
**CPAC 2010
**CPAC 2009
**CPAC 2008
**CPAC 2007
**CPAC 2006
Andrewman327 (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally have no problem with including boring lists in the description of each year's CPAC.  The information is much more accessible than if we were to attempt to name all the speakers in a narrative, and the list of all speakers is useful information about the conference. JamesMLane t c 20:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm waiting to see how the "role in settling disputes" part works out.  Generally, in American politics, disputes don't get settled except by elections, so any assertion of such a role for CPAC will need to be solidly sourced.  Other than that, your proposal looks fine to me.  It's partly a reorganization but you're also proposing to add a lot of material that's not in the article now.  This will improve the article if it can be done in accordance with Wikipedia policies (NPOV and verifiability).  Good luck! JamesMLane t c 05:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well put all around.  I'll start with the basics that can be easily verified, like the different awards that are given.  I'm trying to focus on what a typical person who doesn't know anything about CPAC would want to learn from the article.  Too many Wikipedia articles delve into minutia without giving enough basic information first.
I'm more glib on a talk page than an actual article, so the real section will probably revolve around how CPAC shows the diversity of opinion of the conservative movement as opposed to actually settling issues between different factions.  To wit: Several articles on the early CPACs talk about whether or not to found a third party and feelings about Richard Nixon.  This year the narrative was establishment conservatives versus tea party activists.  There are also the battles between social conservatives and Libertarians (see Huckabee's comments on why he skipped this year) and gay conservatives versus anti-gay groups.  And don't get me started on the John Birch Society controversy.  CPAC is a place where all of these groups work under the same roof (or, to invoke a cliche, under the same big tent).
Andrewman327 (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed New Outline for Article

message: I dunno who thought adding the "many conservatives" bit when it came to the straw poll, but last I checked, the citing for it was one blogger who has a deep hatred for marijuana usage and homosexuals, going so far as to call both immoral. "many" should denote a poll of some kind if used, and until further research on the subject would be done, minor dissent would be the best descriptor.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.220.220 (talk) 04:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Social conservatives make up a very large part of the conservative movement; the Paulites/libertarians are a small minority. "Many" is accurate. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Many is not accurate unless you can properly cite it. ViperEmpire (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  reasoning for wording edits 

message: It currently says Ron Paul, but no source is provided.  Herman Cain won a CPAC straw poll in Orlando in September, however.  Could the article explain this discrepancy?--Brian Dell (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: CPAC in Washington is the conference the article is about. CPAC Florida is like a sub-conference. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  2011 Straw Poll winner 

message: If a Criticism section actually contributes to the understanding of CPAC, then let's have a Criticism section. However, the current content in that section hardly offers any real criticism. Whereas the current Criticism section serves up emotionally charged partisan rhetoric from the political left, one could condense it into something more politically neutral, such as saying that CPAC has had a few controversial speakers. Or something like that. What is currently in the Criticism section is clearly from someone who just hates the other viewpoint. Let's make this entry respectable. RedSix (talk) 05:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent points. Delete the section and start over? – Lionel (talk) 06:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  It sounds more like sour grapes than reality based criticism.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.189.221.40 (talk) 11:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks--I'd been meaning to make those changes myself. Honestly, I don't think we usually need a "criticism" section for partisan activities. We can take it as read that when people in a democracy are active for side A, they will be criticized by people who disagree with side A; if they have speakers, the speakers will certainly be "controversial", because there's no point in arguing if there isn't a controversy. I'd only open up a criticism section if there's particularly noteworthy criticism--e.g. from the group's own side, or from very prominent people on the other side (like high officeholders). (For example, I think it might be noteworthy that prominent conservatives criticized the conference for banning GOProud--though that's currently well enough covered in the "Recent Conferences" section.) Narsil (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with delete the section and start over.  Criticism sections in general are frowned upon in the guidelines (but I can't tell you which guideline!).  Would it do any good to explain the the editor who added it why it is not appropriate—or would that be bullying?  --Kenatipo  speak! 00:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism Section 

message: Today, at noon PT (3pmET) the annual straw poll will be taken. Here is the schedule: -- AstroU (talk) 10:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The nod of CPAC goes to Ron Paul ("3-pete", third year in a row). Scott Walker surges to 2nd.
By Washington Times Staff - The Washington Times - Saturday, February 28, 2015 
Percent (for) Candidate 
* 25.7% for Sen. Rand Paul
* 21.4% for Gov. Scott Walker
* 11.5% for Sen. Ted Cruz
* 11.4% for Dr. Ben Carson
* 8.3% for Former Gov. Jeb Bush
* 4.3% for Former Sen. Rick Santorum
* 3.7% for Sen. Marco Rubio
* 3.5% for Donald Trump
* 3.0% for Carly Fiorina
* 2.8% for Gov. Chris Christie
* 1.1% for Former Gov. Rick Perry
* 0.9% for Gov. Bobby Jindal
* 0.8% for Former Gov. Sarah Palin
* 0.3% for Former Gov. Mike Huckabee
* 0.3% for Former Ambassador John Bolton
* 0.1% for Sen. Lindsey Graham
* 0.1% for Former Gov. George Pataki
* 1.0% for Undecided
* 0.7% for Other    I'll add more references later. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  2015 Straw Poll winner 

message: I'm having a surprisingly difficult time finding data on the straw poll results from before 2006. If anyone has access to old news paper archives or ACU documents with this information, please contribute. It would be great if we could fill in the blanks! Bomberjacket5 (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Pre-2006 Straw Poll Data

message: The controversy section is organically out of place, and actually unnecessary. If the only "controversy" is Milo Yiannopoulos's now canceled invitation, that merits no mention in any article except Milo Yiannopoulos' article. It's also a good idea to avoid "controversy" or "criticism" sections in partisan subjects. --Bigeyedbeansfromvenus (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Conservative Political Action Conference. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20121212085025/http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2008/02/14/groups_travel_to_conference.aspx to http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2008/02/14/groups_travel_to_conference.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Conservative Political Action Conference. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100223172115/http://www.flashreport.org/blog.php?postID=2010021908224609 to http://www.flashreport.org/blog.php?postID=2010021908224609
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100221132221/http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/02/farright-john-birch-society-2010.html to http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/02/farright-john-birch-society-2010.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This is a poorly sourced, non-notable incident. The cited source is a satirical editorial from The New Hampshire Gazette--with no listed author. It has exactly one sentence on the incident. This is wholly WP:UNDUE and non-WP:RS. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: And this last edit is a pure WP:SYNTH vio, Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 05:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Remedied. Radio Adept (talk) 05:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

text: To name a few, the incident has been covered in Snopes, Slate, and the German public radio Deutschlandfunk. It seems far from being poorly sourced or non-notable. Radio Adept (talk) 05:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not too sure about the German radio source. However, with the Slate source, this deserves--at most--two sentences. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 06:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in agreement, I already deleted the golden Trump statue part for both being really idiotic and for doing more damage to the slanted coverage of recent events, this one seems to be fueled partially on conspiracy. I wholly doubt an organization that runs CPAC attended by majorly members of one of the two largest political parties in the U.S. is trying to sneak symbolisim of Nazi iconology after they threw out white supremacists from the event already. I'm concuring with maybe the introduction of two sentences, but even at that I'm so hesitant. I'd rather this article didn't get bogged down in nonsense Twitter hysteria. CaliIndie (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , although I agree with you and  in regard to the stage, the statue is unquestionably worthy of inclusion. Google it and see. Besides the The Hill, Market Watch, Vox, and The Guardian, which are all used as sources and which you deleted, it's covered by CNN, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Houston Chronicle, the Washington Examiner, Yahoo News, Newsweek, Reuters, and many more. Some of these sources have multiple stories on it. While the stage may be questionable, the statue is clearly not. I've reverted both deletions to WP:STATUSQUO until a consensus can be reached. WestCD (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: How is the statue not questionable, no I really don't care about the coverage, websites want clicks and report sensational trash all the time. CaliIndie (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: ,  The sourcing for the golden statue is obviously more solid than the stage incident. However, there is still the question of lasting impact. As for the stage incident, if all we have are low-quality sources, then it's pretty guaranteed there will be no lasting impact. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

text: As I said below, all sources include the background of the symbol, because it is not the symbol itself that is notable, but the background of that symbol. Relevant information is central to the incident's notability. Also, calling the people noticing the resemblance "mentally unsound" and calling Snopes a "far left joke website" certainly seems like vandalism to me. Radio Adept (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , This is not an article on the symbol. This is an article on CPAC. Readers can click the link to read more about the symbol. We follow what the soucres write. --Um, I definitely never said that. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  This amount of information is WP:UNDUE to the extreme. And it's easily becoming a WP:COAT. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Also, explaining the Nazi symbol to such a lengthy extent legitimizes Twitter users'accusation of ill intention on CPAC. Thomas Meng (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , So are you saying you want to exclude the material from the article? You struck out your !vote down below. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , I've changed it back. Sorry about that. Had I known that this section went at such lengths explaining the Nazi symbol, I would not have struck out my vote. I should definitely read the material under discussion next time before voting. Thomas Meng (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

text: I'm aware you didn't say those words; I was referring to the IP edit that was the subject of my "Undo vandalism" comment. (Though looking at the edit history, it looks like another user beat me to the undo.) Radio Adept (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

text: , are the 16 sources presented below by Radio Adept (including gold standards such as The Guardian and The Washington Post) enough to sway your opinion on sourcing? –dlthewave ☎ 03:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sway my opinion on sourcing? Sure. Sway my opinion on deleting or keeping the edit? No, not really. I could refactor my !vote with a different justification for excluding the edit, if you like. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, if you want that part of your !vote to stand, you'll probably want to change it. When consensus is assessed, !votes based on concerns that have already been addressed are usually disregarded. –dlthewave ☎ 03:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, I changed it. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) Consensus is based on policy based !votes, which I don't see at all on the "delete" side. Rationale such as ; ;  are just editors' opinions which do not in any way reflect Wikipedia policy and would be thrown out by any closing admin. Dr. Swag Lord's mention of sourcing is more on the mark, but it seems that those concerns have been mitigated now that more sources are available. –dlthewave ☎ 15:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Which policy applies here?  ONUS certainly applies.  This is trivia.  We have sources that started with a twitter account that said the stage looked like an Odal.  This seems to have caused a stir with click bait stories from sources that have been hostile to conservatives as of late.  But what does it actually tell the reader about CPAC?  Does anyone think CPAC actually meant to dog whistle a symbol used by some Nazi orgs?  Is this actually something that is widely recognized?  I suspect most people would avoid using things that looked like a swastikas' even accidentally.  The same is true of the stylized Nazi "SS".  But are people even widely aware of the Odal-Nazi connection?  Do any of the sources claim this was deliberate?  Conservatives are generally very supportive of Israel so why would CPAC want to use a Nazi associated symbol?  Additionally, when one looks at not just the stage but the whole set it's easier to see this this as an inadvertent likeness.  So why would we include an inadvertent likeness?  We aren't required to include trivia just because it was mentioned by generally RSs.  This is just such a case.  Springee (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:DUE would be the relevant policy, and this section covers several viewpoints of a controversy that emerged from CPAC 2021 which was reported widely by reliable sources. Whether or not the incident was intentional is irrelevant to policy and not up to us to answer or decide. Its widespread coverage merits inclusion in my opinion. I would dispute the trivia characterization, this was a significant controversy related to the event. –dlthewave ☎ 16:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BALASP,   This is a minor aspect of the subject.  This is a recent event that won't likely survive the 10 year test.  If it does then we can add the material then.  Springee (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps this Odal rune thing will be seen ten years from now as a foundational moment in the group's evolution. We don't know, of course, if the issue will later be deemed trivial or critical. So what we do in this situation is tell the reader about the things that they came here to read. If we don't summarize the widespread media depictions, then we are not serving the reader. Binksternet (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It might but that would be a WP:CRYSTAL issue.  Also, we don't know why people came here to read this article.  We aren't serving the reader by including content that runs afoul of RECENT and could suggest something about the group that isn't true.  Springee (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

text: , A formal RfC has been started down below. You may input your opinions there, if you wish.  Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Many thanks! Have added my tuppence! Alexandre8 (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

text: , Since there was no clear consensus in this straw poll, a formal RfC was started below. Feel free to place your !vote there. (I'm gonna place a note up top). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  CPAC Stage 

message: Note: Please place your !vote in the formal RfC down below. Thank you. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , are the 16 sources presented below by Radio Adept (including gold standards such as The Guardian and The Washington Post) enough to sway your opinion on sourcing? –dlthewave ☎ 03:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sway my opinion on sourcing? Sure. Sway my opinion on deleting or keeping the edit? No, not really. I could refactor my !vote with a different justification for excluding the edit, if you like. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, if you want that part of your !vote to stand, you'll probably want to change it. When consensus is assessed, !votes based on concerns that have already been addressed are usually disregarded. –dlthewave ☎ 03:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, I changed it. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) Consensus is based on policy based !votes, which I don't see at all on the "delete" side. Rationale such as ; ;  are just editors' opinions which do not in any way reflect Wikipedia policy and would be thrown out by any closing admin. Dr. Swag Lord's mention of sourcing is more on the mark, but it seems that those concerns have been mitigated now that more sources are available. –dlthewave ☎ 15:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Which policy applies here?  ONUS certainly applies.  This is trivia.  We have sources that started with a twitter account that said the stage looked like an Odal.  This seems to have caused a stir with click bait stories from sources that have been hostile to conservatives as of late.  But what does it actually tell the reader about CPAC?  Does anyone think CPAC actually meant to dog whistle a symbol used by some Nazi orgs?  Is this actually something that is widely recognized?  I suspect most people would avoid using things that looked like a swastikas' even accidentally.  The same is true of the stylized Nazi "SS".  But are people even widely aware of the Odal-Nazi connection?  Do any of the sources claim this was deliberate?  Conservatives are generally very supportive of Israel so why would CPAC want to use a Nazi associated symbol?  Additionally, when one looks at not just the stage but the whole set it's easier to see this this as an inadvertent likeness.  So why would we include an inadvertent likeness?  We aren't required to include trivia just because it was mentioned by generally RSs.  This is just such a case.  Springee (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:DUE would be the relevant policy, and this section covers several viewpoints of a controversy that emerged from CPAC 2021 which was reported widely by reliable sources. Whether or not the incident was intentional is irrelevant to policy and not up to us to answer or decide. Its widespread coverage merits inclusion in my opinion. I would dispute the trivia characterization, this was a significant controversy related to the event. –dlthewave ☎ 16:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BALASP,   This is a minor aspect of the subject.  This is a recent event that won't likely survive the 10 year test.  If it does then we can add the material then.  Springee (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps this Odal rune thing will be seen ten years from now as a foundational moment in the group's evolution. We don't know, of course, if the issue will later be deemed trivial or critical. So what we do in this situation is tell the reader about the things that they came here to read. If we don't summarize the widespread media depictions, then we are not serving the reader. Binksternet (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It might but that would be a WP:CRYSTAL issue.  Also, we don't know why people came here to read this article.  We aren't serving the reader by including content that runs afoul of RECENT and could suggest something about the group that isn't true.  Springee (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

text: , A formal RfC has been started down below. You may input your opinions there, if you wish.  Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Many thanks! Have added my tuppence! Alexandre8 (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

text: , Since there was no clear consensus in this straw poll, a formal RfC was started below. Feel free to place your !vote there. (I'm gonna place a note up top). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll

message: The CPAC stage incident is without a question notable at this point. Hyatt has released a statement, and the following outlets have published full-length articles about the stage's shape:
* Reuters
* The Guardian
* The Independent
* The Washington Post
* The Hill
* Snopes
* Slate
* HuffPost
* U.S. News
* SBS News
* Business Insider
* Orlando Sentinel
* National Post
* MarketWatch
* Jewish Telegraphic Agency
* The Times of Israel
* Foreign-language sources:
** Sina Finance (China)
** Deutschlandfunk (Germany)
** Frankfurter Rundschau (Germany)
** The Korea Times (Korea)
** RIA Novosti (Russia)
** 20 Minutos (Spain)
—Radio Adept (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: The CPAC has existed since the 1970s and was attended by famous historical figures like Ronald Reagan. Yet almost the entire article text is focused on what happened in the 2010s and 2020s. PBZE (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure more historical information would be welcome. -- Pemilligan (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Recentism and a WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION to boot. This article needs work, especially from a historical perspective. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. For starters, does anyone else see a problem with the "Fringe Groups" section? I don't think GOProud or the Log Cabin Republicans are considered fringe groups. And I don't really understand what's controversial about them co-sponsoring with CPAC. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

text:  perhaps this is a bit much, but maybe we should have articles for each yearly CPAC? That would allow only having the most important topical information here. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recentism? 

message: A RfC has been opened at Talk:Odal_(rune)#RfC_CPAC_stage_Odal_shape.  The question is, "Should the article mention the that some sources noted the CPAC stage had an appearance similar to a Odal?".  This is largely the same question as above but applied to the Odal article vs the CPAC article.  Springee (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC CPAC stage Odal shape - at [[Odal_(rune)]] article =

message: I've seen a lot of chatter about an imminent CPAC (writing this on 6th August) but the article says CPAC 2022 already happened in February. Is that an error, or are there 2 different conferences (or similarly named conferences with the same acronym)? If there are different conferences, could someone make a disambiguation link? 84.71.128.124 (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The page states there were 2 CPAC conferences in the U.S. in 2021 and 2 CPAC conferences in the U.S. in 2022, in addition to CPACs outside the U.S. With so many conferences, CPAC is really a "semi-annual political conference" now and no longer just an "annual political conference". TomStike (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different conferences? 

message: Sourced and relevant content about the most recent CPAC has been reverted with the argument that it isn't an article about the 2022 conference. This claim is hard for me to believe, given that about 50% of the page content is devoted to stuff that happened at individual CPACs (and not diverted to individual articles on the specific years--which of course don't exist).
What should happen now is we find a way to include this material in a manner consistent with the way we already include year-specific content. Protonk (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It would have been better (more NOCON compliant) to wait until this discussion had completed to restore the disputed content.  Your edits don't really address the concern.  Springee (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Your concern appears to be that it doesn't belong at all so there's no way for me to address that. Protonk (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: We didn't have consensus when you restored disrupted content.  I was noting NOCON says we should get consensus first.  That said, starting this discussion is certainly the correct next step. Springee (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: And again, I'll note that your concern is it shouldn't be in the article so it is impossible for my edits to address the concern. So it's perhaps fair to say that I should have gone to the talk page on behalf of some IP editor you reverted, but that's not what I'm objecting to here. Protonk (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "we are all domestic terrorists" 

message: Tulsi Gabbard spoke at the CPAC 2023, as far as I know. Should that be mentioned? Mats33 (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tulsi Gabbard 2023? 

message: I don't have the energy to put this in at the moment, but there was apparently a 2023 CPAC Hungary with the Georgian PM as a keynote speaker. Someone should put in a sentence or two about it. See https://agenda.ge/en/news/2023/1750 for instance.Brianyoumans (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Hungary 2023

message: the 2023 conference is notable for absence of DeSantis, with several other prominent Republicans like Ronna McDaniel, Kevin McCarthy, Mitch McConnell and Glenn Youngkin all skipping the conference. DeSantis headlined a Club for Growth event as a rival to Trump, Haley attended both events. See  jonas (talk) 10:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  2023 absentees and rival event