Talk:Turning Point USA/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Troll farm

We see the usual tactics from the stonewalling side: revert an addition with some alphabet soup and rely on the DS setup to keep it out. So, here we are -- what aspects of the single sentence are not supported by the Washington Post story? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

This tone is unhelpful. Please exhibit restraint and project good faith. Hash the issues out. When needed, use dispute resolution requests to codify consensus for key items. El_C 05:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The reliable source did not state affirmatively that this group operated a troll farm. They "likened" or compared it to a troll farm in the headline. The substantive content is that Twitter and Facebook banned a number of associated accounts for certain misconduct. We should summarize the development with strictly neutral writing, not emulate a headline writer. We should also include a neutral summary of the group's response. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, agreed. The story is undoubtedly significant, reported by other outlets, and its core facts are supported by various sources including action taken by the social media platforms, so there's no reason to believe it's false, and the remaining question is how to represent it accurately. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The reversion of the original edit was warranted. It was poorly inserted and not impartial. I think this addition [[1]] of basically the same content is far more balanced. The only issue is the claims of misdoings should taken out of Wikivoice since we only have a single source for the claims. Springee (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Springee that the newer wording is more neutral. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Got corroborating articles beside allegations in WaPo and their echo chamber? One source (which appears to be primary at this point) with allegations that are noncompliant with WP:RECENTISM is...well, noncompliant. How is it different from this, and why is social media and WaPo's sensational headline so important in light of WP:NOTCLICKBAIT, WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA, WP:BLPGROUP, WP:GUILT, WP:V and WP:NPOV? This is looking more like OR or SYNTH, don't you think? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, why add the comment about "troll farms"? I don't think that is neutral language. Remember, this is supposed to summarize the article. An emotive, subjective phrase isn't a good summary and may violate LABEL. Anything "troll" is going to be a potential label issue. I support the inclusion of the accounts being suspended since that is an objective outcome of the report. Springee (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The idea appears several times in the article. (Not just in the headline, per Cullen.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

This is all misleading information. Turning Point USA has not been suspended. CNN reported that social media reacted to a report from WaPo - The steps from the social media giants come after The Washington Post reported that Turning Point Action had paid teenagers to flood the platforms with conservative talking points, which included disinformation and misleading claims. They are responding to RECENTISM, and we are following suit. It's embarrassing breaking news, that may not even be true. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, that's not a good argument since we aren't including the response from the organization, "...issued a statement from the group’s field director defending the social media campaign and saying any comparison to a troll farm was a “gross mischaracterization." If the wiki article contains an allegation of wrong doing then the reply from the organization should be included as well. Furthermore, per LABEL we should avoid value laden labels. Calling their activity "troll farm" is certainly value laden and not needed to describe what is happening in an impartial tone. Springee (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I've addressed your concern. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

No, that parenthetical helps but doesn't address the problem. We need to use neutral descriptors and put the response in the text, not as a parenthetical reply. Springee (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

You are dancing around the issue which is the use of a contentious label. Springee (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm content with contention. Would love to know your thoughts about "santorum". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

You being OK with it doesn't mean it should be in the article. Your other question is unrelated to this topic. You are welcome to ask on my talk page. Springee (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

A key angle in this story is the "importation" of previously foreign efforts to use disinformation to influence election outcomes. Not sorry. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Why should you be sorry? It's not clear there was any "importation" vs a different group decided to do something similar. Anyway, if you think that is an important angle what text would you add to the article to make it clear. I tend to agree with S4T below and would support something similar to replace the "troll farm" label. Springee (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

It was actually one person, Graham Brookie, director of the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab, who said “In this election, the troll farm is in Phoenix.” WaPo put "troll farm" in scare quotes. IMO it would be better to add something about this: The months-long effort by the tax-exempt nonprofit is among the most ambitious domestic influence campaigns uncovered this election cycle", but my hands are tied by 1RR, I think. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

It's actually better to not add anything per RECENTISM. It is still a developing story. I think we should follow our PAGs, especially since this involves BLP. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Springee, "Troll Farm" is a poor description and inappropriate label for the section. I also have concerns with WP:RECENTISM and WP:BLP. Also this article is getting riddled with WP:REDFLAG this a very extraordinary claim, and yet only one substantial article about it, that being the WAPO article, every other article is just a secondary source of the Wapo article MaximusEditor (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Why is an exclusive scoop by a major reputable news organization necessarily a very extraordinary claim? News organizations are in the scoop business. If we were talking about "just some guy with a blog" reporting this, it certainly would be extraordinary. But WaPo? WSJ? NYT? I think not. And the way to determine this is to examine the rate at which they are required to issue major corrections and retractions. Today the WSJ exclusively reported that Bill Barr told federal prosecutors to consider charging violent protestors with sedition. That's pretty extraordinary, and I added it to his BLP, but I don't see anyone challenging it. Maybe some find it "extraordinary" that TPUSA was running a "troll farm," but others wouldn't be the least bit surprised. soibangla (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Why do you think BLP is a concern here? soibangla (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

This has now been picked up by CNN and seems to be widely discussed. The "troll farm" label is attributed. I don't see any issues anymore. BeŻet (talk) 11:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

BeŻet, it would be best if you reverted you addition of the content here [[2]]. Even though that was a good faith addition, it was in violation of the BRD restriction on this page and is nearly identical to the reverted addition here [[3]]. Additionally, it is redundant since the topic in question was added here [[4]]. Springee (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back:, the material you added here[[5]] is definitely due for inclusion in the article. It's part of the Turning Point Action section.[[6]] Springee (talk) 03:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

That seems related but separate, from the article "“Although the people behind this network attempted to conceal their identities and coordination, our investigation linked this activity to Rally Forge, a US marketing firm, working on behalf of Turning Point USA,” a Facebook statement reads.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The source you cited just cites the WP article. I'm not sure who cyberscoop is. It would probably be better to find a more robust RS then add this content to the other material since this is a follow on. It appears to add new content in addition to the original material but I'm not certain. That could be we haven't added that content into the article but it exists in the current sources. Either way, it should be merged with the existing, related content if nothing else so the full story is in just one part of the this article. Springee (talk) 03:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah it does a lot more than that... There was a second round of takedowns announced on October 8th which is whats being reported on here. Check the October 8 FB statement yourself, they say TPUSA not TPA [7]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Facebook isn't a reliable source. They are self published. Springee (talk) 04:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

There are also numerous secondary sources, though. --Aquillion (talk) 00:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• Reviewing this discussion, I'm not seeing anyone objecting to an attributed mention in the text (as opposed to an unattributed mention in the header, which discussion focuses on), but plainly disagrees. As far as I can see this part is straightforward and uncontroversial; the fact that the WaPo characterized it that way is significant, widely-cited, and central to the topic the paragraph focuses on. In fact we already (obliquely) reference it when we mention Turning Point's denial of that characterization. Does anyone have an explanation for why those sources would be inadequate, or why an attributed mention in the body would be inappropriate? It seems, to me, to be central to the WaPo article and to the ensuing discussion about it, in a way that makes it impossible to accurately cover without at least acknowledging that the WaPo said it. Without it, the current text has an inherent problem in that we cover TP's saying "no we're not a troll farm" in a confusing way without making it clear who referred to them as a troll farm and when; and of course the fact that that was the focus of TP's response (which we do have to include) makes it clear that it's necessary to mention it, especially given the sourcing. --Aquillion (talk) 00:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

This is all covered on the Turning Point Action page, (which I recently found out was created). Keeping it on the TPUSA page is misleading - they were not involved with the Troll Farm incident, just TPAction was. They are different non-profits; TPACTION is a 501(c)4 Political Action Committee able to do certain things that TPUSA (being a 501(c)3)) can not, by law. Saying they are one in the same is plain wrong and implies that TPUSA was involved with the Troll Farm incident which encroaches on WP:SYNTH so lets just not go down that road. We should delete all the content that falls under TPACTION jurisdiction from the TPUSA page and keep it where it belongs on the TPACTION page. I understood why it was kept on the TPUSA page previous to TPACTION having its own page, but that's not the case anymore. WP:SIZESPLIT was brought up for the Charlie Kirk split, and now needs to be readdressed to split out all the TPACTION content, currently this article is 109,838 bytes large, exceeding almost 10% the recommended article length, and exactly the reason why that guideline was created. Eruditess (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Table of contents?

Side note, where did the table of contents go for the talk page? Eruditess (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

There are only 3 sections right now. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh , that makes sense, thanks Emir of WikipediaEruditess (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

For each page with at least four headings, a table of contents (TOC) is automatically generated from the section headings - WP:TOC -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Works closely with PragerU

This is a recently added claim to the lead of the article which says PragerU and TPUSA work closely together [[8]]. The source is an archived copy of a Private-eye.co.uk web article. I see two issues with edit. First, true or not, DUE or not, it should not be added to the first paragraph of the lead. Second, the sourcing is very weak for the claim in question. The majority of the article is not about TPUSA or PragerU. Only at the very end does the article say, "which confusingly, isn't a university but an American outfit that makes right-wing videos and works closely with TPUSA". This is a vague statement in that it doesn't say how much or in what form or offer any other evidence to support the claim of collaboration other than saying a presenter for TPUSA made a video that sounds a lot like one made by PragerU. It doesn't say why they sound a like or offer any examples. A search of RSN shows limited results for Private Eye and most suggest it was reliable only for the most basic of facts and there were concerns about how they frame issues. In defense of Private Eye in this case, this wasn't the focus of the article and seems to have been offered only as some backdrop to the main point of the article. However, if this was added only as background to a different topic then one has to question it's WEIGHT for inclusion anywhere in the TPUSA article much less anywhere in the lead. A claim of "works closely with" isn't just a pure statement of fact (a speaker from PragerU said X about TPUSA). Instead it's a subjective assessment and in this case offered with no evidence. Thus what exactly is being claimed is unclear. To the extent that there is collaboration, if Private Eye is the only source then it's UNDUE for inclusion in the article. Courtesy ping @Symmachus Auxiliarus and Bangalamania: Springee (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I have no opinion as of the moment as to the weight of statement, or where it should be placed (i.e., if it's due for the lead; if it's not expanded upon elsewhere, I'd lean towards 'not'), but it's certainly due somewhere in the article. I reverted on the basis of your claiming it was a "poor source", and that it "didn't offer proof". I too searched RSN for discussions about Private Eye, and none of them offered a consensus or were really related to its reliability, outside of specific instances. I do know its reputation though, and it's considered one of the highest quality investigative sources in the U.K., and in journalism generally. It also has an rather stilted relationship with mainstream journalism due to its use of pseudonyms, and its propensity for lampooning and satirization. But I don't think anyone denies it's a reliable source, known for fact-checking its material...

In this case, as with any imminently reliable source, we don't need "proof", examples, or "evidence". We can assume they wouldn't make a statement about two organizations working closely together without doing their due diligence (this is also far from the first time I've heard this, so I'm sure other reliable sources exist). This is a not a standard used anywhere for inclusion in Wikipedia, as you well know... If it were, we'd never cite a New York Times article without attribution. I'm not quite sure where you've come to conclusion that this is inherently "subjective", as obviously not meant as a statement of opinion, nor is it descriptive, but is a direct statement of fact. As I said, it's due for the article per the usual criterion, but I'd generally agree on principle that there would either need to be more about it in the body per WP:SUMMARY, or at least multiple sources claiming this, for inclusion in the lead as notable information. (courtesy ping for @Springee and Bangalamania:). Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I think your reply begs the question, is Private Eye really reliable? The specific RSN discussions I found don't sound that promising [[9]], [[10]]. That doesn't quite read like they totally made it up but not a solid source either. We should always be careful when trying to source things to the sort of secondary content that appears at the end of an article. It reminds me of the first time one of my works was cited. Rather than citing the body of the work, they cited a claim from my introduction. They should have just followed my source and cited it directly! Anyway, in this case the sourcing simply isn't sufficient to establish weight. However, I did a bit of searching rather than just arguing (though the latter is more fun :D ). PragerU made an announcement in 2017 [[11]]. That I would concede is sufficient to justify "collaboration" though I can't tell if it was a one time things or something going into the 2018 elections or if it was in perpetuity. Anyway, I think we are in agreement that this is info for the article body, not the lead. After that I think it should only be mentioned if we can find sources saying what it actually is, not just "they collaborated". If sources can't tell us in what way that suggests it simply isn't due. BTW, thanks for the engagement on the topic. Springee (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Springee:, of course, I'm always happy to engage and discuss. As I said in an unrelated comment to someone elsewhere on Wikipedia recently, I'm not here to play politics- I just want the articles to be accurate, and reflect what a reader would likely be interested in knowing about the subject, providing it's encyclopedic. In this case, I think the initial edit was a good faith contribution that's essentially a good edit- but I do agree that it needs to be weighted. As far as Private Eye, I stand by my assessment of the source. You can see more general info about it in its Wikipedia article (Private Eye (magazine)) that the entries on RSN don't discuss in detail. It has a pretty solid reputation; while not a tabloid, it does emulate some elements of one, which is why there's discussion about how they use things like "hooks". I'm sort of doubting we'll find much with the level of specificity you're desiring here, just because, honestly... Neither PragerU nor TPUSA are really on the radar of most mainstream journalism (especially the latter), aside from recent events. Obviously this varies with more niche outlets (Vice, New Yorker, Slate, etc.) that tend to do cultural exposés, which are bound to be more perennial-- and thus are not always up to date. I will take a look when I have more time. This is completely anecdotal (and thus OR), but I have seen a PragerU "ad" on YouTube in 2020 that appeared to be produced with TP involvement, so I'd guess it's an ongoing thing. At any rate, thank you for digging up that press release. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd agree that Private Eye's investigative reporting is pretty reliable (though I would say that as my wife used to work for it), but I'd also agree that I'd like to see another RS here, or else we'd probably have to say "According to Private Eye...", which is on the edges of due weight. Black Kite (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

TPUSA and Jan 6, 2021, Trump rally

I hope that more respectable sources will pick up the story of Charlie Kirk and his role in promoting the riots at the US Capitol. Here's more information in which Kirk claims to have sponsored more than 80 busloads of protestorsCollegeMeltdown (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

References

DD is a marginal source and it considered reliable only for internet trends. They may be correct that Kirk deleted tweets but the problem is what they are trying to imply. Linking Kirk with what ended up happening is a BLP issue and thus needs very robust sourcing, not inference from 3rd tier sources. Springee (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Per Kirk himself and as reported by RS, he was involved in organizing the pro-Trump rally in DC on January 6. In fact, he boasted about sending 80+ busloads. I don't see a reason why TPUSA's role in organizing the events should be removed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Currently the only sources are ones that re marginal/not generally reliable for political topics which this is. That means this content currently isn't DUE. Springee (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

CollegeMeltdown, Define "conservative" (see, for example, [12]).

The language is shifting, the distinction between conservative and far-white is blurring, but this is WIkipedia, and we don't do No True Scotsman. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Any concerns over sourcing should be resolved by this Reuters report[13]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Added to the article yesterday. Springee (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• I added Kirk's January 4 tweet with his announcement of sending "80+ buses" to the rally. We're only using the Daily Dot as a secondary source—no need to discuss their reliability—for the tweet which is also included as a archived on the wayback machine. We're not drawing or citing any conclusions. Mentioning TPUSA involvement in soliciting participation at an event to protest confirmed election results is noteworthy, particulary for a non-profit. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Leadership section is highly problematic

Semi-new to posting on politics on Wikipedia due to the high contention involved with the political climate. However, I made an edit that I believe has more to do with BLP and formatting than political affiliation. I believe the edit I made is NPOV and definitely benefits the article as a part of the larger picture. Recently had an edit reverted that removed the leadership section from this article and redistributed pertinent information to other sections. The user who reverted it stated that the reasoning may be sound but would need consensus since material removed in question had sufficient proper sourcing. Basically, this leadership section reads like a directory. No other article pages from similar organizations have a leadership section. Mainly because leadership sections on controversial articles can be problematic. As there are several Wiki policies and BLP policies that were put in place to prevent occurrences like this. Here are some:

1) WP:NOTDIR – considering that it was highly contested that Charlie Kirk may not even be notable enough for his own article, these other names on the list definitely aren’t notable enough for mention. Having them on a list for people to see is not what an Encyclopedia is for.

2) WP:YELLOWPAGES – Encyclopedia is not the place to come to locate the names of people involved in a certain organization, there are other avenues to pursue if you needed to contact somebody if you have a serious inquiry. Hence why this Wiki guideline was made.

3) WP:BLPNAME – In my opinion, the most important part of removing this from the article is the potential BLP violations that are just waiting to happen, if they have not already occurred. Wikipedia basically allows information to be published about people who are public figures, because information about their lives comes with the territory. Wikipedia makes it very clear that people who do not wish for their information to be put on display are protected. This makes it so individuals do not get doxed and harassed by disgruntled people on social media; which may ultimately impact their families and children.

4) WP:SIZESPLIT - Charlie Kirk was split out for many reasons but one was that the article is bigger than it should be, Charlie is really the big bulk of the leadership section. I understand we should have mention of him (as a person) on the page but nothing more than a sentence or two, anything else would need to fall under actions (covered by WP:RS) he did in association with Turning Point USA and could fall under any of the other sections, mainly controversies. The rest of the section are made up of non-notable people, maybe minus Candace Owens and Benny Johnson. Which could be listed in other places. The information about those two hardly highlight their leadership roles and focus on controversial actions anyways. Not to mention I believe they are both public figures.

What is the argument / justification for a leadership section? Any answer given is in direct opposition to one of those three four guidelines. Does it improve the article? The answer is no. That’s why there are no other instances I can find from similar organizations.( on both sides of the political spectrum I might add)

Also you do not want to set precedence for making random lists of people involved in a massive organization such as TPUSA. Perfect example is this snippet from the bottom of the leadership section:

“According to Politico, Turning Point's Christianné Allen is a surrogate for Trump lawyer Rudy Guliani.”

The citation source lists her as an ambassador. I don’t know what all the different titles TPUSA has for their organization are, but I am quite sure ambassadors are not paid and most definitely sure that she is not leadership. We cannot set precedence of listing people in a leadership in this manner, it is very misleading. This sentence needs to be removed.

I'd like to know thoughts on this, anybody know a lot about BLP policy? PrecociousPeach (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Please take a look at archived previous discussions, this one, for example, about removing content from the leadership section. As for Allen, Giuliani's "comms director" per the cited source, point taken. I've added "and associates" to the heading. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I reviewed the previous discussion that Space4Time3Continuum2x linked and that discussion was a topic about a split for Charlie Kirk out of this Turning Point USA article. There was only one similar aspect from my outline that was talked about in that discussion. That being the "Size-Split" issue. Which currently stands even with splitting Charlie Kirk out, still sits above the recommended size limit. So I suppose it just is furthering my point to remove said "Leadership" section. Also there is no talk about the WP:BLP issues I outlined in my original post discussed in the archived discussion.While I appreciate you trying to be diplomatic and add "associates" to the header. Adding the word associates only furthers in showing that the leadership section is reading like a directory of non-notable people. What purpose does having TPUSA's associates serve? Absolutely none from an Encyclopedic stand point. I would ask that you revert that "associate" addition edit, as it actually adds to the problem I've addressed rather than aid it, and give me reasons you think the Leadership section isn't problematic from a BLP standpoint. I'm quite sure, after even further research after my original post, I still can't find any similar organizations with a leadership section. Doesn't that raise some red-flags? PrecociousPeach (talk) 09:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't review this discussion in detail but a sentence like the one from Politico has no place in an encylopedia. It depends on a reader understanding what Giliani is with respect to Trump and just as critically, what the Politico writer thinks the relationship is. The correct way to handle this is either remove it or make it explicit without referencing third parties. So say something like Allen does X for TPUSA or for Kirk. Springee (talk) 12:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the section further, the first entry is muckraking talking about issues from years before and in a way that isn't clear how they relate to his TPUSA tenure. The material about Ownes might be due if it is covered not in context of the impact on Owens but the impact on TPUSA. Also, I'm a bit warry of using the very left leaning Daily Beast as a source that conservatives wanted her to step down. Finally, this isn't about "leadership" rather it seems to be a controversy that can be hung on TPUSA. It seems like a bit of a side show for this article but if it's included this isn't the way to do it. Springee (talk) 12:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I do agree that we need to remove the leadership section. I believe this section was added after Charlie Kirk was split out into its own article, which makes the split pointless; we split Charlie Kirk out of the article to reduce the size (per WP:SIZESPLIT ) and then created a Leadership section, which no other similar organizations have because it does in fact violate WP:BLP, now making the total size of the article bigger than before. It does appear to have aspects of muckraking and tones of controversy as Springee has pointed out. So why try and sugar coat it? What’s the point? call it what it is, a controversy section. Am I lobbying to remove the controversies? Not at all. Just move the necessary information to the correct section, remove the blatantly problematic Leadership section as well as non-note worthy people. Its ironic that we had to debate if Charlie Kirk was noteworthy enough for his own article, then split him out and then re-added him back into the article along with several other people less notable than himself. According to WP:BLP guidelines, BLP infractions should be removed immediately without waiting for discussion.

Due to the time sensitivity of BLP matters, I’m going to ping Atsme since she frequents this page often and she is an OTRS admin and I expect she will have very valuable input on the BLP implications of such a section based on her comments in the past. Eruditess (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I was just shutting down my laptop to call it a night when I saw the ping. Eruditess, I was not an Otrs admin, just an agent. We occasionally do have issues that require our help, but this is not one of them. I'll take a look at this tomorrow but only as a copy editor/collaborator like everyone else here. Atsme 💬 📧 01:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Atsme Thank you, I apologize for the confusion of the OTRS, your input is always valued in any capacity.Eruditess (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

My critique of this article is that it is poorly written, fails NPOV, and the specific section in question is among the worst I've seen in a while. The tone is highly critical, and the material was obviously cherrypicked from news sources that were focused more on the presidential campaign than the actual intent and purpose of the organization - same song, slightly different verses throughout this article. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not be a SOAPBOX for political campaigns or their opponents, or to serve as an advocacy to RGW. The entire section should be salted, if not the entire article, and rewritten from scratch. I remember having to do something similar (not quite to this degree) with Matthew Whittaker. BD2412 magically separated the baby from the bath water, and turned a terrible article into a well-written, encyclopedic BLP. That's what needs to be done to this article. The subsection Others and the following timeline falls into the trap of being overly focused on the Trump campaign - it fails WP:10YT. We've already had lengthy discussions about BLP vios at BLP/N as well as on this TP about Kirk and TPUSA. There have been repeated attempts to include noncompliant material - it appears some of it has been included in violation of WP:BLPGROUP and WP:GUILT. Now that Kirk has his own BLP, we don't need a separate section with his personal information, much less an entire section on Leadership that is highly critical and UNDUE. We already have a section titled History regarding the founding of the organization, and that's where the Kirk material belongs. We certainly don't need to give attention to volunteers or staff that come and go because that violates WP:BLP1E. It also appears that we may be dealing with WP:COI as it relates to the following: Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself. The tone of this article validates the concern. In an effort to maintain consistency with WP:MOS, the section titles for similar organizations typically include History (or Background), Structure and organization, Funding, Purpose and goals, you know - encyclopedic content presented in a neutral, dispassionate tone, rather than having editors create sections for the purpose of denigrating the organization - that makes it noncompliant with WP:COATRACK, or borderline attack page. Atsme 💬 📧 02:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The first thing I noticed was an absence of stated purpose. The ADL source (though clearly presenting its own narrative) states that the mission statement of TPUSA is to "identify, educate, train, and organize students to promote the principles of freedom, free markets, and limited government". I do find it odd that this readily sourced item of information is nowhere in the article. BD2412 T 03:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Generalization

I reverted the material added in this edit and in an even longer "summary" of the material in the lead (the lead is supposed to summarize the body, not the other way around) with a duplicate of the cited source. The material drew a general conclusion based on a local newspaper report on one specific event, the Student Action Summit in December 2020 which had approx. 2,000 attendees and featured speakers such as Donald Trump, Jr., and Tucker Carlson. The source doesn’t draw the conclusion that the number of attendees is typical for TPUSA events, so IMO we can’t either, per WP:SYNTH. Is there a reliable source for this claim? The other cites for previous events mention "hundreds" (student summit 2019 and Black Leadership Summit 2019) and "an estimated 1,000" (Young Women’s Leadership Summit 2018), so a generalization like typically garner attendance in the thousands and can draw attendance numbers in the few thousands would appear to be hyperbole—and unsourced hyperbole to boot. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Falkirk Center

This edit removed the section on the Falkirk Center, stating that "This partnership was with Kirk exclusively free of TPUSA" and that "All sources emphasize only Kirk, zero mention of TPUSA involvement." It's long-standing content, so I reverted the deletion. "Zero mention of TPUSA involvement" needs to be discussed. NYT cite says: Mr. Kirk, the founder of the conservative youth organization Turning Point USA, would bring energy and a huge audience of enthusiastic Trump-friendly young people to the partnership; Liberty would bring the institutional credibility. That, IMO, is a pretty clear statement of what Turning Point, "the huge audience of enthusiastic Trump-friendly young people," brought to the partnership. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, the problem is here in your comment:

 "That, IMO, is a pretty clear statement of what Turning Point, "the huge audience of enthusiastic Trump-friendly young people," brought to the partnership." 

This is blatant WP:OR, in addition to WP:SYNTH because no where in the article is Turning Point even mentioned. As stated in the edit, it is very misleading/dangerous to make that discernment with Turning Point being a 501c3 - meaning its not even legally feasible for TPUSA to be associated with FALKIRK. The majority of TPUSA students may be Trump friendly, you can not say that the majority of Trump friendly students are TPUSA, that simply is not true. Also even if its long standing material, it is irrelevant to this article and there is no WP Policy that justifies putting it in the TPUSA article. WP:OR and WP:SYNTH override the need for a discussion; we can not imply things that are not true, please revert. MaximusEditor (talk) 00:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

It's a stretch to be sure, and it looks like this content is already in the Charlie Kirk article where it certainly makes more sense. If there were sources that provided a direct connection to TPUSA it would make more sense for this to stay. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

That's a quote from the New York Times article cited in the Falkirk section. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x Yes, I realize it is a quote in the article and when you take out the subsection in comma's you get "Mr. Kirk would bring energy and a huge audience of enthusiastic Trump-friendly young people to the partnership" which clearly does not say "TPUSA would bring energy and a huge audience of enthusiastic Trump-friendly young people to the partnership" nor does it say that "Charlie Kirk would bring energy and a huge audience of TPUSA people". When you read the whole article, it clearly avoids mentioning that TPUSA is involved because, as a 501(C)3, there is no way shape or form they can be a part of this. Implying that they are is pure WP:Synth and you adding it because of your IMO makes it WP:OR. It's not FALTPUSA, its FALKIRK. Please delete the section - it is cut and dry, WP Policy does not support it, you are grasping at straws. MaximusEditor (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

You’re doing exactly what you’re saying I am doing. You’re ignoring content that’s in the source, i.e., that Kirk is a co-founder of both Turning Point and the Falkirk Center. Also this: At times, Mr. Kirk’s predilection for outrageous stunts became awkward for the organization. At a student conference hosted by Turning Point in Florida in December, scantily clad young women shot cash out of cannons at a packed audience of mostly maskless young people during a promotional segment for an energy drink. Kirk is the connection between Turning Point and the Falkirk Center. Two organizations having the same leader is legitimate info for the articles on the leader and both organizations. And if the following remark of yours isn’t synth, I don’t know what is: When you read the whole article, it clearly avoids mentioning that TPUSA is involved because, as a 501(C)3, there is no way shape or form they can be a part of this. When did their 501(c)3 status ever deter them from participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Locke Cole, if the content is already over on Kirks page, it seems redundant to put it here and also irrelevant? Space4Time3Continuum2x seems you are trying to justify that Falkirk center is directly related to Turning Point USA when it is only directly related to Charlie Kirk. I don't think the relationship of Kirk and a conservative think tank (Falkirk) is so significant it warrants mention here. Could somebody offer up some more WP:RS that directly link Turning Point USA and FalKirk Center, that would be the only way it would be relevant. EliteArcher88 (talk) 01:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Here's some. The key point is that it's connected to Turning Point Faith, an initiative that we don't currently mention at all:

• [14] Liberty University has declined to renew the contract for conservative activist Charlie Kirk at the think tank he founded along with Jerry Falwell Jr. Kirk has also revealed that he will be pivoting to a new faith-rooted initiative.} ... According to the Times, Kirk’s departure does not signal the end of his engagement with overlaps of faith and politics. He is reportedly planning a church-based “field program” known as Turning Point Faith, presumably connected to Turning Point USA, the conservative youth organization Kirk co-founded. The effort will seek out church leaders to participate in political actions ranging from the local to the national.
• [15] (Followup to above) Turning Point USA, an advocacy organization founded by conservative Christian activist Charlie Kirk, has unveiled a new education initiative that promises an “America-first education” for educators and homeschool parents. ... Kirk recently left the Falkirk Center, an organization he co-founded at Liberty University, an evangelical Christian school. Touted as a think tank, the center — which Kirk created with former Liberty President Jerry Falwell, Jr. — created $50,000 worth of pro-Trump digital advertisements during the 2020 election and brought on prominent Trump supporters such as former presidential aid Sebastian Gorka and conservative Christian commentator Eric Metaxas as fellows.
• [16]: Liberty University has declined to renew the contract for conservative activist Charlie Kirk at the think tank he founded along with Jerry Falwell Jr. Kirk has also revealed that he will be pivoting to a new faith-rooted initiative. ... According to the Times, Kirk’s departure does not signal the end of his engagement with overlaps of faith and politics. He is reportedly planning a church-based “field program” known as Turning Point Faith, presumably connected to Turning Point USA, the conservative youth organization Kirk co-founded. The effort will seek out church leaders to participate in political actions ranging from the local to the national.
• [17]: Politico also explored issues raised by previous reporting on advertising done by the Falkirk Center, a Liberty think tank created in 2019 by Falwell and Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk.
• [18] It was officially created in November by Liberty's president, Jerry Falwell Jr. and founder of the conservative non-profit Turning Point USA, Charlie Kirk.
• [19] According to Politico, the think tank, which is named the Falkirk Center as an amalgamation of Falwell and the last name of pro-Trump Turning Point student group founder Charlie Kirk, was created using the nonprofit religious institution’s funds.
• [20] According to news accounts, the university recently declined to renew its contract with Kirk, who is also the leader of Turning Point USA, a conservative advocacy group for high-school and college students.

Turning Point Faith is also mentioned in the NYT source. I think that we ought to restore the deleted content, but retitle the section to focus on Turning Point Faith; the coverage generally connects Turning Point Faith to the Falkirk center (as an initiative Kirk started when he was ousted from the Falkirk center, which is intended to continue the overlap of politics and faith that he began there. A paragraph devoted to the Falkirk center is reasonable in that context. --Aquillion (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I added a sentence to the article mentioning Kirk's announcement of Turning Point Faith. It's not a done deal, though, so renaming the section may be a tad premature. According to the website, the launch is planned for this fall but I wonder how the Turning Point Faith ministries feel about the name.

References

Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• EliteArcher88: I’d agree if Turning Point was a grassroots student organization. It’s not. It’s a top-down organization, and Kirk is its leader, face, and voice. Quoting source: Kirk told OAN that his high school and college students are being pulled away from their conservate upbringing. They need institutions that help them stay true to their faith and their values, and that’s exactly what the Falkirk wants to be. His high school and college students? Yeah, OK, OAN is not a reliable source but—interview. TPUSA and Falkirk have/had ambassadorship programs, with e.g. Giuliani’s spokeswoman being an ambassador for both. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I actually don't mind what Aquillion proposed with renaming the section Turning Point Faith and having it be the focus as it seems to be actually directly under Turning Point USA at least as far as I can tell, not a separate non-profit under Kirk. Also from what Aquillion linked as WP:RS, I still don't see anything that links TPUSA to Falkirk. I just think that Falkirk content belongs on Kirk and Liberty University articles. Just seems to be a stretch to include it here, so much so it feels like WP:COATRACK to me. Which is a complaint I feel a lot of other editors (including myself) seem to feel runs rampant on this particular article. EliteArcher88 (talk) 03:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Massive deletion of sourced material

PrecociousPeach, you tried this in December, were reverted and told to take a deletion of sourced material that severe to the talk page for discussion. You didn't. Instead, you did another massive deletion of sourced material, claiming that consensus has been achieved, that you removed unspecified BLP infractions, etc. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, I find the argument and logic in your revert summary very confusing and inaccurate. Yes I was reverted with the reasoning that I may be correct in removing BLP infringement but would need discussion on the talk page to do so since the material is from verifiable sources; I started this discussion over a month ago stating several WP:BLP violations and how there is no other instances of similar organizations that allow a leadership section. Not to mention that it violates WP:SIZESPLIT, WP:NOTDIR, WP:BLPNAME, WP:10YT & WP:YELLOWPAGES. You actually responded to this discussion (so why do you state that no discussion exists?). You linked a barely relevant archive post which I responded to describing how I found it to only further justify my point on WP:SIZESPLIT (for which you never replied back). Your argument is that “well sourced material” has been removed without discussion, that has also been proven wrong; the discussion is two sections up on this very talk page, concurrent to this one. Also, You said there is no consensus, but several users do have issue with the Leadership section, myself, Eruditess, Springee, Atsme, not to mention I’d like to point out that Dr.Swag_Lord,_Ph.d thanked me for my edit in removing it. At this point, the only contrarian viewpoint is yours. Your revert summary requested for me to point out where the discussion/consensus is; I told you where it is and by my count its four editors against you. According to WP:ONUS guidelines, the talk page discussion has reached a consensus that, albeit verifiable content, it does harm this article by means of WP:BLP infringements and should be removed. On the WP:ONUS guideline article it also states: “The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.”; you have not done that. Since all of the objections in your revert summary have been shown to be unfounded, please self revert back. PrecociousPeach (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

PrecociousPeach - the section does appear somewhat undue, but can you explain how it violates WP:BLP, for those of us unfamiliar with the subject? Black Kite (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

PrecociousPeach, BLP concerns are often used as a way to whitewash articles when the subject is controversial, when nonetheless, a wealth of reliable sources exist discussing said controversies. To be clear: I'm not in any way saying that's what you're doing here, but if it's a widely discussed issue(s) among RS, then it's quite rare that it actually constitutes a potential BLP violation. One of the primary pillars of Wikipedia, as you note, is verifiability. And you yourself concede that these are widely discussed issues relevant to understanding the subject, and that the information is verifiable and supported by reliable sources. There's no policy-based reason to exclude most of this content. If you still feel this is justified, and you think your position is supportable by policy, take it to a pertinent noticeboard and seek community consensus for your proposed edits. I daresay your arguments won't receive much traction in the wider Wikipedia community, though. We've all "done this dance" before. And based on past [similar] experiences, I'm confident that the community will overwhelmingly agree that there's no valid reason to exclude the majority of this content. It'll ultimately come down to style and weight; "how" to present it, not "if" it should be presented at all. I DO agree that this is probably overly-detailed though. But that's a weight issue, not a BLP issue. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Apologies if that was a bit blunt. It appears that way re-reading my comment, at least. Like I said, I do in fact agree that this is likely excessively detailed, and could reasonably be trimmed. But I can't see how it's not due, and I certainly can't see how any of it is a BLP violation. My original point (in a nutshell) was that the premise for exclusion (BLP vios) doesn't seem tenable, and that I don't see any valid policy-based reasons for exclusion, nor how the baseline information in the proposed edit might not be due. Hell, it's even directly pertinent to their notability. It isn't synthesis, either. But I do agree there are weight issues. That's a lot of prose for something that could be summed up more succinctly. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 04:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

It's been a while since this was discussed. Was some of this content split into separate articles? I recall there was some concern about material about what some people who left TPUSA did after leaving that was being pushed into the article here. Perhaps it would be good to revisit some of the discussion and where consensus was etc. Springee (talk) 04:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, Springee. Probably due for a fresh discussion, and more to the point, a proposed wording/format that we could all get behind. As I said, it's a bit excessive. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 04:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• PrecociousPeach, your initial "severe deletion of sourced material" and its revert took place on December 15. I didn't connect a Talk discussion initiated two weeks later titled "Leadership section is highly problematic" to that deletion/revert (+ obviously didn't remember my brief comment), and it looks to me like there was some opinion shopping going on in that slow-moving—uh—discussion. Like I said in the earlier discussion, it's hard to separate Kirk from TPUSA and vice versa. And why did you delete all mention of Montgomery and Bowyer, for example? Exactly what/where are the BLP, BLPNAME, YELLOWPAGES, 10YT violations? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

After reading the various responses and reviewing my original posts; I offer the following clarifications in order to make the intent of my edits crystal clear:

I only removed sourced material that was WP:UNDUE, the removed material is readily available in the proper articles (mainly Charlie Kirks). Why do we have redundant information here that is not relevant to TPUSA? Can somebody explain that? Any information that had to do with strictly Charlie Kirk and not TPUSA was removed, it's over in his article, it does not belong here, period.

I also wish to make it crystal clear that while the BLP infringements are perhaps an urgent concern, they are hardly the only concerns. Several other Wiki-policies have been breached and were contributing factors.

Wikipedia makes it explicitly clear that protecting a living persons identity is an urgent concern; brushing it off as whitewashing is not and was not the intention. Any figures that are associated with TPUSA in a public manner are fair game. Those being Charlie Kirk, Candace Owens & Benny Johnson. Anybody else is going to breach WP:BLPNAME infractions as well as WP:NOTDIR & WP:YELLOWPAGES when put on an organized list in this fashion. This scenario is literally the use case for why these policies were put into place. This is basically creating a dox list for disgruntled social media fanatics to go attack these people.

The following addresses the concerns raised by various editors:

Much of these points were presented in my original post, but since a number of questions have been raised, I will respond to each editor below on a point-by-point basis.

1)Black_Kite, I agree that the section itself is undue, not just because of BLP; here is the reasoning from my original post,

1)WP:NOTDIR – considering that it was highly contested that Charlie Kirk may not even be notable enough for his own article, these other names on the list definitely aren’t notable enough for mention. Having them on a list for people to see is not what an Encyclopedia is for.

2)WP:YELLOWPAGES – Encyclopedia is not the place to come to locate the names of people involved in a certain organization, there are other avenues to pursue if you needed to contact somebody if you have a serious inquiry. Hence why this Wiki guideline was made.

3)WP:BLPNAME – In my opinion, the most important part of removing this from the article is the potential BLP violations that are just waiting to happen, if they have not already occurred. Wikipedia basically allows information to be published about people who are public figures, because information about their lives comes with the territory. Wikipedia makes it very clear that people who do not wish for their information to be put on display are protected. This makes it so individuals do not get doxed and harassed by disgruntled people on social media; which may ultimately impact their families and children.

4)WP:SIZESPLIT – Charlie Kirk was split out for many reasons but one was that the article became bigger than it should have been. Charlie is a substantial part of the leadership section; a sentence or two about him is appropriate, anything else needs to be placed under actions he did in association with Turning Point USA (covered by [WP:RS]) or could fall under any of the other sections, mainly controversies. The rest of the Leadership section is made up of non-notable people, maybe minus Candace Owens and Benny Johnson, which could be listed in other places. The information about those two hardly highlight their leadership roles and focus on controversial actions anyways. Not to mention I believe they are both public figures.

2)Springee Yes, visiting the archives it appears the Charlie Kirk section was split out (As well as Turning Point Action and as of recently Turning Point -UK). Charlie Kirks split seems to show that most of the material that was strictly about Charlie Kirk was moved out and anything having relevance with TPUSA was kept. But after the split, a lot of non-relevant material was put back into the article, basically restoring it to the previous condition that the Split consensus deemed should be moved. WP:SIZESPLIT goes hand in hand with a lot of the WP:COATRACK issues in the leadership section; the current content is not really focusing on the leadership, but focuses a lot on controversies and the Trump administration. Sorry, but that needs to be addressed.

3)Symmachus_Auxiliarus Yes verifiability is a pillar of Wikipedia; but just because an item is verifiable and reliably sourced doesn’t guarantee that it should be included in the article, it also has to comply with WP:COMMONSENSE guideline and fulfill WP:ONUS. But let’s review:

I removed Charlie Kirks information if it wasn’t relevant to TPUSA, which also could make a case for WP:UNDUE,(remember he has his own article now). Since all of the relevant material was controversial, yet lacking any mention of actual leadership information, I moved it to the controversy section – so how can that be perceived as “whitewashing” the content? That is to say unless the point of the leadership section is to highlight controversies [Not saying that’s what is intended, but the consensus from my previous discussion agreed that’s how it comes across]? Most of the removal of Charlies material didn’t lie under BLP anyways that was mostly due to being [WP:UNDUE] and redundant from the WP:SIZESPLIT. The removal of BLP infractions was with anybody other than Charlie Kirk, Candace Owens & Benny Johnson (Those are the only three notable persons on the leadership list). Those three people were moved to the controversy section, as the sourced material mainly highlighted controversies with a little tidbit about leadership and not the other way around. The BLP reasoning, which I do take seriously, would be anybody not passing WP:BLP1E , which trickles down to WP:BLPNAME.

4)Space4Time3Continuum2x It really is not that hard to distinguish relevant Charlie Kirk material as it relates to TPUSA. If it doesn’t relate to TPUSA, then why do you want it in this article ? Specifically, even after the article was split out, Montgomery could be moved over to formation section, but the sources used for Bowyer are pretty bad, one is Linkedin? A WaPo article & Politico article that talks about Students for Trump, which is different from TPUSA , one looks like a government blog? And finally an AZCentral article pulls Personal information such as his religion, how does this add to the article? None of this passes WP:10YT. I think a byproduct of this leadership section is that its morphing an encyclopedia into a directory, that isn’t the purpose of Wikipedia. That is why no other articles with similar organizations have leadership sections. So please do not say I’m mass deleting sourced material, anything sourced and relevant was kept and moved, anything else should exist on Charlie Kirks page, Turning Point Action or Students for Trump exclusively.

Another point worth indicating that the leadership section was problematic was posted by Atsme (I'd check out her full post as it has a lot of other great points):

               “ In an effort to maintain consistency with WP:MOS, the section titles for similar organizations typically include History (or Background), Structure and organization, Funding, Purpose and goals”

Perhaps together we can agree to eliminate the leadership section, move any relevant content into one of those common WP:MOS stated sections (Or controversies section, which is undeniably where most of the content will end up going, let’s be real) and get rid of any non-notable people who might be part of a WP:BLP infraction. This would bring it more into alignment with every other similar organization’s articles, keep the controversial material as to not white wash the article as well as slim an already too big article down, and move redundant information to their rightful place. PrecociousPeach (talk) 05:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I haven't tried to follow a lot of this regarding what specifically was removed. As a general statement, since we have a primary article on Kirk, this article should basically summarize the Kirk article. If the Kirk article has a good lead that means we should largely use the content statement from the lead for the content here. The doesn't mean include things like Kirk's birthday, home state etc but the parts of the lead of the Kirk article that relate to TPUSA. That also doesn't apply to information about TPUSA that involves Kirk in other parts of this article. What we should not have is a bio of Kirk here that is something other than a summary of the actual bio article. PrecociousPeach, that was a lot of material. It might be better to just pick one part at a time and we can discuss one change at a time. Springee (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Holy moly! Starting to unravel the above, just one point for now: Which text about Kirk specifically do you consider not to relate to TPUSA and where is it mentioned on Charlie Kirk? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
• Quite frankly, from the POV of a GA/FA/NPP reviewer, the whole article needs to be rewritten because it fails NPOV, and is noncompliant with BLP because Kirk individuals have been targeted using cherrypicked material from sources chosen by the opposition. There is no doubt that WP is edited by college students, and that's one of the ingredients that may very well may have caused this imbalance. We're talking about an organization that has targeted radical left, and we can expect members of the opposition to dislike this organization enough to make it a COATRACK for the opposition. A team of neutral copy editors/reviewers should work toward bringing this article into compliance with NPOV. If you will look back at prior BLPN and NPOVN discussions (can't remember where we had them) you will find that much of this is noncompliant. I'm pinging BD2412, hoping that he will join us in this endeavor because he did such a good job with Matthew Whitaker. I'm of the mind that this article is way too long, includes speculation and theory by news sources that should not be included, and targets individuals that should not be targeted. Following is a brief list of issues in the lead alone:
  1. William Montgomery participated somewhat during the founding of the organization but he was not a "founder". That is the result of media error. I've already explained this in past discussions.
  2. TPUSA's sister organizations do not belong in the lead, and neither does Prager U. Who determined those are "sister" organizations in the first place or is it the result of OR or possibly SYNTH?
  3. It is not a "right-wing" organization - it is a conservative non-profit organization. Right-wing is a label born of POV. The same applies to several of the NPOs on the left - we should not be mirroring clickbait news sources by labeling these organizations as either right-wing or left-wing. That is not what encyclopedias do.
  4. The group often supports the Trump campaign, and has been subject to several controversies around their beliefs, their means of advocacy, and the organization itself. - that is pure RECENTISM and it fails WP:10YT for obvious reasons. They are still around under Biden, and will probably make news again and again, so we can add the Trump info in the body but it's not needed in the lead to describe the organization.
  5. The names of donors do not belong in the lead.
• There is quite a bit more that needs work in this article to get it to the point it will pass a GAR, and that is what we should be shooting for. Atsme 💬 📧 15:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I am in agreement with the points raised by Atsme. I noted earlier on this talk page my surprise that the entity's own easily sourced mission statement is absent from the article, while a substantial amount of material less relevant than this is included. It is also not the concern of this article to cover content missing from articles on individuals. There are other issues, of course, but these are striking. I think a solution may be to start a new draft on a subpage that scrupulously focuses on what is relevant to the organization as a whole, rather than to fleeting personalities. BD2412 T 17:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support the subpage draft proposal - ping me when it's set up. I'm off to see the wizard...Atsme 💬 📧 20:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support the subpage draft proposal, I have to agree the page is quite biased and doesn't pass NPOV (along with numerous other issues, such as WP:BLP, WP:RECENTISM the list goes on), I think its clear from my previous posts how I feel about the article, I support and would like to help out. PrecociousPeach (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose sandbox rewrites in general, and especiually here, where there's a risk that people who watch the article will be unaware of what would then be dropped as a fait accompli. Given TPA's role in the insurrection we should proceed with extreme caution, incrementally, and through line by line discussion here. Certainly recruiting an author who turned the Whitaker article into such a glowing paean is not the right way forward. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I take great pride in my ability to write neutrally and without succumbing to the vagaries of political bias. See my articles on the Demographic history of the Supreme Court of the United States, Efforts to impeach George W. Bush, Efforts to impeach Barack Obama, Efforts to impeach Donald Trump, Jerome Frank, and Rice W. Means. All of these have, for various reasons, attracted some controversy, and I have worked hard to steer straight courses through them. Wikipedia does have a tendency to become a magnet for people to gripe about disfavored figures and organizations, which does not necessarily suit our purposes as a purveyor of a general sense of who people are and what things do. It is, specifically, a bit of a reach to assert that an organization had a role "in the insurrection" because they transported people to the rally on that date without specifically intending what happened thereafter (compared to, say, the Oathkeepers, which are accused of specifically coordinating armaments and plans of attack on the Capital). BD2412 T 23:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
• I think JzG's concern is legitimate even though I think the article is a mess. It would be a lot of effort but it might make sense for those who are so motivated to work on an off line rewrite then let people review and incorporate it in parts. No matter how perfect a rewrite might be, a practical issue is it would take only a few editors to object and revert the whole thing on the grounds of NOCON. Springee (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Springee: The benefit of a sandbox draft is that it would allow us to build from the bottom up an article free of the biases upon which the original article was built, which may otherwise continue to present a tilted picture in subtle ways. BD2412 T 18:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• A case of people in glass houses throwing stones? NPOV, per Atsme: We’re talking about an organization that has targeted radical left, and we can expect members of the opposition to dislike this organization enough to make it a COATRACK for the opposition. A team of neutral copy editors/reviewers should work toward bringing this article into compliance with NPOV. If you will look back at prior BLPN and NPOVN discussions (can't remember where we had them) you will find that much of this is noncompliant. I'm pinging (u BD2412), hoping that he will join us in this endeavor because he did such a good job with Matthew Whitaker. "Radical left" and "members of the opposition" do not convince me that the plan here is NPOV, and the ping (plus the earlier one) make me wonder about canvassing. BD2412, how did you arrive at this conclusion: It is, specifically, a bit of a reach to assert that an organization had a role "in the insurrection" because they transported people to the rally on that date without specifically intending what happened thereafter (compared to, say, the Oathkeepers, which are accused of specifically coordinating armaments and plans of attack on the Capital). Where does the article claim that TPUSA had "a role in the insurrection?" Per Atsme—and another editor—this article is also "way too long." You mentioned a number of articles that you take great pride in. One of them, Efforts to impeach Donald Trump, is twice the size of this one, and another one, Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States, is 20% larger than this one. Size doesn’t always appear to be a matter of concern. What are the rules? Took a look at Rice W. Means and found the following example of misquoting. The text in the cited book: Rice W. Means, …, continued the assault in a ferocious attack on the FDR administration. Four lines later: Means whipped the veterans into thunderous applause, exclaiming, "This economy act was conceived by income-tax dodgers. It was born of a result of ruthless, vicious propaganda. … It is a stain upon the honor of the United States." Your edit: In response to the enactment of the initial New Deal measures in 1933, Means made "a ferocious attack on the FDR administration", declaring it to have been "conceived by income-tax dodgers" and "born of ruthless, vicious propaganda", and calling it a "a stain upon the honor of the United States". Perfectly neutral and perfectly false grammar, changing the meaning.

off-line rewrite? Had to look up NOCON - yup, opposed. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

First of all, size may very well be a matter of concern - there are times when one simply cannot do anything about it, as with the Trump articles. I highly recommend a memory refresh about WP:CANVASSING because my pinging BD2412 was a long way from it. He is a neutral collaborator, and a single editor I invited here to collaborate - that is not canvassing. You might also want to refresh your memory about WP:CIVILITY, and stop making this personal - and right now would be a good time to do so. I have a lot of work on my plate, as I'm sure others do as well, and would rather not be sidetracked by WP:BAITING or unfounded allegations. Personalizing one's opponent may look great in Rules for Radicals but it doesn't work well in practice on WP. Your collaboration is certainly welcome, just don't make your criticisms personal - focus on content, not editors and we'll all get along famously. Atsme 💬 📧 16:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, the economy act that Rice W. Means was railing against was a signature piece of legislation proposed by the Roosevelt Administration. An attack on such legislation is not separate from an attack on the administration proposing it. BD2412 T 16:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

That’s your opinion. You misquoted the source, and the result (an administration conceived by income-tax dodgers and born of ruthless, vicious propaganda) doesn’t make sense. Could have been avoided by writing something like "and declared the New Deal’s Economy Act to have been "conceived by income-tax dodgers" and "born of ruthless, vicious propaganda", and to be "a stain upon the honor of the United States" if you wanted to use all those quotes.

The following is another example of of misquoting plus editorializing (although), from Matthew Whitaker; text bolded by me. Initial WP text: Throughout his career, Whitaker claimed that he was an Academic All-American in college. A December 2018 investigation by the Wall Street Journal found that Whitaker's claim was incorrect: he was the 1992 GTE District VII Academic All-District selection. A spokeswoman for College Sports Information Directors of America (CoSIDA) said CoSIDA was less formally organized in the 1990s and "We know that people over time use terms interchangeably and innocently." Using the verb "stated" instead of "claimed" would have made the text more neutral. Instead you rewrote: Whitaker was the 1992 GTE District VII Academic All-District selection, although he was referred to at the time in the yearly Iowa football media book as an Academic All-American; a December 2018 investigation by the Wall Street Journal quoted a spokeswoman for College Sports Information Directors of America (CoSIDA) who said CoSIDA was less formally organized in the 1990s and "We know that people over time use terms interchangeably and innocently". According to the source, the 1993 Hawkeyes media guide [] listed him as a "GTE District VII academic All-American." Instead of making the text more neutral, you replaced the mention that Whitaker had stated something false on applications and elsewhere with (in WP voice) the half-hearted speculation of an Iowa assistant athletic director that maybe their football guide confused Whitaker ("If there is confusion at all, part of it could be how we listed it in our media guide"), and supported it by leaving out part of what the media guide actually said, i.e., GTE District VII. I'm sorry, but that makes the text less neutral in my book (A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject)). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

As for your earlier comment that Wikipedia does have a tendency to become a magnet for people to gripe about disfavored figures and organizations, it's also a magnet for people promoting favored figures and organizations and trying to keep any negative information out of their pages. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Wait, I thought Wikipedia was a place for grumpy internet trolls who can't get a date because they live in their parents basements to whine about people who don't live in a basement... just a moment, my parent says I have to get out of the basement and take the trash out... In all seriousness, this isn't a good place to take about editor motivations. Certainly if I were wrong about the motives of others as often as others have been wrong about my motives... well I would be wrong a lot. It is fair to suggest the article comes across as a hit/fluff piece. I think something that is often a concern with a subject where its easy to find critical articles from those on the other side of the isle is, how much detail is DUE and where is the line between summarizing what sources say and just piling on. I do think Wikipedia articles often tend to become pile-ons. A new outrage occurs, get some press (frequently repeats of the same story) and is just as soon forgotten but for the addition to the Wikipedia entry. To pull this back to this article, I think we do need to zoom out and ask what material makes sense in this vs a child/parent article and we should avoid too much overlap. Also, per NPOV we should make sure if we try to tell both sides of the story. I've seen a lot of examples where statements are declared "false" by a fact checker but the actual justifications show it to be more gray than black or white. We do readers a disservice if we present a gray issue as either black or white. Springee (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support, Has been awhile since I’ve visited TPUSA’s page, as usual the balance of WP:DUE material is out of flux, one definitely does not get the feeling of NPOV when reading this article. I just had to remove a sentence from the lead that was very problematic, it said TPUSA supports the Trump campaign, just because people want to believe this, doesn’t make it true. Supporting the Trump campaign is against the rules of a 501(c)3, a non-profit organization, seen here. That is a very serious allegation. Sure Turning Point Action can do that, they are a 501 ( c )4 which is a PAC; they can legally do certain stuff Turning Point USA can’t. They are legally separate entities and grouping them together would be very irresponsible. Readers who can’t discern the difference can get the wrong impression. The lead rewrite was a mess, I would like to change it back or redraft it at the very least. BD2412, the mission statement was added in awhile ago, but removed because of WP:MISSIONSTATEMENT, which I have to say is a weak argument for non-profit organizations, the mission statement (quoted in several secondary sources) summarizes the organizations stated purpose better than anything else in the lead combined. Having it in the article improves the article, and it should not have been removed. How can you so religiously cite a source but then remove the mission statement that was also heavily cited in those sources, seems odd. Selecting some information from a source but limiting what comes from the source is WP:SYNTHESIS. MaximusEditor (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  MaximusEditor, I am curious as to whether you have either never looked at any part of TPUSA's output, or you wear rose-tinted Joo Janta 200 Superchromatic Peril-Sensitive Sunglasses when doing so. It is pure and unadulterated Trumpist propaganda. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• My opinion is that these draft proposals are almost always a waste of time and end up wasting the energy of everyone involved. The current article is the result of extensive discussions and consensus-building; a lot of the complaints above go beyond just wanting a subpage and talk about sweeping problems with everything in the article. A draft that aims to drastically change the article on that premise is extremely unlikely to ever obtain consensus. If people have serious issues with the article, I'd suggest starting slowly, one objection at a time, rather than wasting effort on sweeping rewrites that are going to be more difficult to get consensus for than smaller changes. As it is, I'm seeing a lot of vague statements that people would prefer a more positive tone, without much specificity about where the current article is actually undue or fails to accurately reflect the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

  Aquillion, I agree. Work stuff in section by section. There are people here who are wary of whitewashing, and others who WP:CRYBLP if we even hint that this is anything other than a completely legitimate organization, despite the mountain of well-sourced evidence of grift and bad faith within the article. To avoid drama, we have to proceed incrementally, however much we trust the person proposing the alternative version. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Is Turning Point USA a conservative organization?

I think it's improper to call Turning Point USA a "conservative" organization. There are several mainstream conservative organizations, including Young Republicans, that say TPUSA is not conservative. TPUSA has, on many occasions, shown itself to have right-wing leanings, but it also uses sexual exploitation of women's bodies to promote its brand. This is far from conservative, at least in the moral sense. If anything, the organization should be described as "pro-Trump" or "right wing." Note Charlie Kirk's denial that Donald Trump lost the 2020 election as well as his claims that he was receiving "500 emails a minute" calling for a US civil war.

References

CollegeMeltdown (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I added talkref to keep cites with comment. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

In the body of the article has very limited examples of "right-wing" while "conservative" is extensively used. As for the examples above, the Daily Mail is deprecated and MM is not considered reliable (and the recent edit citing it needs to go). Springee (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Springee: why are you making that claim about MM? The consensus was "There is no consensus on the reliability of Media Matters for America. As a biased or opinionated source, their statements should be attributed." Technically you're right, as there was no decision stating it was unreliable, but you're suggesting it can't be used at all. Doug Weller talk 16:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Doug, this edit is sourced solely to MM [[21]]. Springee (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this discussion about the use of conservative vs. right-wing or about the edit adding the "Civil war" section? If it's the section, I haven't found any RS covering Kirk's talk show. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, and it's the only even semi-reliable source, so we don't use it. But others may read this and not understand the situation with MM. Doug Weller talk 20:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The Chronicle of Higher Education recently published an article called "The Far Right’s College Crusade

How extremists are infiltrating — and fracturing — campus Republican groups." In that article, Eric Kelderman states: The organization has gained national notoriety for its “Professor Watchlist,” which seeks to “expose professors who discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom.” It has also attracted a steady stream of controversy for its tactics of seeking to influence student-government elections as well as backlash from more mainstream conservatives. "Turning Point’s stated mission is to promote principles of free-market conservatism. But the organization has ties to several far-right groups, and its leaders and representatives have frequently made comments that are racist and anti-Semitic, according to the ADL. For example, Candace Owens, TPUSA’s former communications director, has made several public statements that appear to defend Adolf Hitler and that minimize the threat of white supremacy." --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 11:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Turning Point USA is more extremist than the lede implies

Turning Point USA is conservative, but it goes further than the mainstream with its "hard-right positions," to the extent that it has been described as "far-right" and "alt-lite".

Its founder supports the white supremacist conspiracy theory of white replacement, and a section on their official website endorses the far-right anti-Semitic conspiracy theory of Cultural Marxism, containing several articles promoting it. Spokeswoman Candace Owens has spoken approvingly of Adolf Hitler and said that his actions in Germany, tacitly including the Holocaust, were "OK, fine." Their official Twitter account posted the following "blatantly anti-Semitic tweet": "The best 'grift' this morning is having a guy named Weinstein criticize young people for wanting fewer hands in their pockets..." They have also helped to create "white student unions."

The group has endorsed alt-right polemicist Milo Yiannopoulos and far-right provocateur James O'Keefe.

Its one-time national field director Crystal Clanton has stated "I HATE BLACK PEOPLE. Like fuck them all... I hate blacks. End of story." Kirk describes Clanton as "the best hire we ever could have made" and said that "Turning Point needs more Crystals; so does America."

Due to this and other evidence, I propose that the lede say Turning Point USA is a far-right organization, or else highlight this extremism more prominently. It goes much farther than the ADL article cited. Regina Lunarum (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello Regina Lunarum, I believe most of these issues have been discussed at length on the talk page or are already in the article. I don't think labeling them "far-right" is accurate, and to do so would need multiple WP:RS directly corresponding to that topic. The TPUSA lede is quite problematic as is, lacking an WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC tone and seeming to not give proper WP:WEIGHT to some of the statements made. I looked through the WP:RS media matters link you gave citing Kirk supporting white replacement, but no where on the page does it say anything about white replacement, or him supporting it, nor in the entirety of the video? So I wouldn't advise putting that in the article as it would be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Looking at the Turning Point USA page that you linked I see one contributor (Morgan Zegers) with about 6 op-eds talking about Cultural Marxism. Therefore I can justify a sentence about TPUSA's "contributor" giving her take on cultural marxism, but once again there isn't anywhere on the site you linked discussing TPUSA having an official stance or actually endorsing it.(I mean I am sure they do, but we can't just make statements like that as editors, Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources, not individual editors' opinions and interpretations.) There is a section in the article that has already discussed Candace Owens making controversial remarks about Hitler, also about how TPUSA chapters called for her resignation for her actions. The Truthout article you linked for the white student unions claim is an opinion piece, so you need to watch for WP:RSEDITORIAL and if you do use it, make sure to use WP:INTEXT attribution to the authors. I don't think TPUSA working with Yiannopoulos & O'Keefe is notable. If it is there will be more reliable sources reporting on it, ( the source you gave seemed to be a WP:PRIMARY link to a pamphlet from one of Turning Points Conferences.) I also read through the Mayer article from The New Yorker, this is also already in the article under the (quite frankly unorganized disaster) "Controversies" section (So I can easily see how one could over look this, as its in dire need of clean up/revamping). In this section it givesWP:DUEWEIGHT context from the article and talks about how Kirk took decisive action within 72 hours of being made aware of the situation. EliteArcher88 (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe the lede can stay the same for now, but I suggest that Charlie Kirk be described as a "Christian Trumpist." I'm not sure that any followers of Kirk would deny that label. It is notable that Kirk has also recently described himself as a prepper. It would also link to a well-documented Wikipedia article on Trumpism. Should we do a survey of the larger Wikipedia community to reach a larger consensus?CollegeMeltdown (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Controversies section needs to be summarized

Just made a couple edits removing some material from a sub-section in the controversies section that was singularly sourced WP:RSOPINION citation from "The Daily Beast". WP:RSP states that "most editors find The Daily Beast to be biased or opinionated. Then I realized a pattern. Most of the Controversies section is just a WP:COATRACK of cherry picked incidents singularly sourced for bad optics. The first paragraph in Controversies reads like a list. It should be a summary. By no means should we remove the material that has factual integral WP:RS citations. But there is an awful lot of op/eds and opinion pieces finding their way into this article and presented as fact. Proposing to summarize the "Controversy" section in an Encyopedic fashion so readers get a more informative experience. EliteArcher88 (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

That isn't what WP:COATRACK means - this article is about TPUSA, so opinions about TPUSA aren't coatracks here. We can argue about whether they are WP:DUE, but coatrack in the wrong policy to cite. --Aquillion (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree with both of you. WP:COATRACK is not the correct policy to cite here. I do think we should discuss what is WP:DUE as Aquillion suggested. The controversies section absolutely reads like a list and not a summary. I say if WP:CONTEXTMATTERS policy is muddy, then we need to remove any WP:RSOPINION pieces and keep the legitimate articles. Summarize what is left. Eruditess (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

There should not even be a Controversies section. See WP:CSECTION. Destroy the section wall and let those paragraphs roam free. When TPU says a stupid thing, the thing and what people think of it belong together in a "Views" section. Conflicts with other organizations belong in the History section. If something does not fit anywhere, throw it away. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hob Gadling never heard of WP:CSECION but I do agree with it. Makes for better Encyclopedic WP:TONE and makes the article sound less biased. Sounds good! EliteArcher88 (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I know this comment is a bit old. But this bears saying. EliteArcher88, while I generally agree, it's worth noting that CSECTION is part of a personal essay, not a policy, or even a guideline, and thus has no official status on Wikipedia. I'm a bit dismayed to see some editors continually citing it as if it's policy or guideline, when it doesn't really amount to more than personal preference. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 10:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Symmachus Auxiliarus The way I see it, if WP:CSECTION is mentioned or invoked. Even though it may be as you said, a preference. It probably means that the article leans heavily on a controversies section that is lacking a neutral WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC WP:TONE. If that's the case I imagine the article is ignoring a lot of WP:BLP protections and usually is violating WP:REDFLAG. They all go hand in hand. It gets very tiring as an editor seeing the same patterns. I prefer neutral articles, so I am definitely all for WP:CSECTION. P.S.. I like your user name. EliteArcher88 (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

With one or two "controversial incidents", you can argue that they are cherry picked incidents singularly sourced for bad optics. But twelve of them, ranging from accusations of bigotry to false claims and allegations of tax violations? They're all properly sourced, including from college newspapers since TPUSA bills itself as a student organization. If anyone can come up with a better heading or a suggestion for integrating content into other sections, go for it, but the section heading "views", aka opinions, is misleading. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Alleged "Censorship on college campuses"

The direct quotes (strongly opposed to the speaker and expressed concerns that the college cannot sanction an event allowing or promoting an alternative or negative view of CRT) also misrepresent the source. The Fire article attributes everything in the paragraph containing those quotes and others to TPUSA chapter president Alex Russo, i.e., "According to Russo". Just the News and Carter's blog are unreliable sources. Also, the generalization in the section heading is WP:UNDUE. It's one alleged incident at one private college. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree with the above concerns. Springee (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Turning Point USA's association with white nationalists

I think it's imperative that there be a section on Turning Point USA and its ties to white nationalists such as the Groypers. While some of the sources may be biased towards progressive folks, I'm sure we will be able to find sources from the other side that confirm these associations and events that present physical evidence of these associations. The history of TPUSA and white nationalists is complicated, but it does appear that white nationalists have strategically used Turning Point USA and infiltrated the TPUSA ranks.

--CollegeMeltdown (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

None of those are acceptable sources for such a red flag claim. Springee (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

If Salon is not an acceptable source, what would be an acceptable source?CollegeMeltdown (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Salon was not one of the sources when I replied [22]. Changing a post after an editor replied should only be done with clear indication that a change was made. Springee (talk) 00:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The Arizona Mirror is an acceptable source (affiliate of States Newsroom) but their article merely says that TPUSA's Amerifest "ended up becoming a major way for influencers from more extreme ideologies within the far-right to meet and interact with local and national politicians" and that TPUSA "has lately been using the phrase and terminology [America First] much more often." Is that enough to say they have been infiltrated? According to the Anfi-Defamation League, per PolitiFact, TPUSA is a right-wing Trumpist organization. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't feel like Mark Pitcavage making a single statement checked by Politifact has the ability to solely label an organization as anything. Also one of the other articles talks about how Turning Point tries to ban the Groypers from entering their events. This isn't notable or have nearly anywhere near enough WP:WEIGHT to cover the WP:REDFLAG {U|Springee} mentioned above. Eruditess (talk) 06:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

References

IMPARTIAL and Covid false claims

Grayfell, per IMPARTIAL we shouldn't be using section headers that say things like "making false claims". Additionally, while the WashPo offers experts who refute TPUSA's statements, the WashPo doesn't state in their own words that the comments are false. We can say that experts refute/say the claims are wrong etc without using phrasing that suggests Wikipedia is taking sides. That is why I reverted to the long standing article text. Springee (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Euphemistic language like "divisiveness" is not impartial, it is very partial. "Was accused of" is evasive filler which implies a level of doubt which is not supported by sources, and is not supportable by any source. The purpose of the article is to summarize sources, with specific care for WP:FRINGE issues such as vaccine conspiracy theories. Grayfell (talk) 22:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

But you also restored section headers that weren't IMPARTIAL. We can say vaccine experts refuted their claims with imperial tone. Springee (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Since experts have repeatedly been forced to refute these claims over and over and over again, It is safe to describe these claims as false -because they are false. Implying otherwise, even indirectly, is editorializing. Softening the language or using ambiguous euphemisms doesn't impart any useful information to readers. The only result of this kind of thing is to humor the fringe perspective that there is at least some merit to these claims. Sources absolutely do not support any such merit, so neither can Wikipedia. We should not insult the reader's intelligence by casting doubt on our own sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

No, we do it to be impartial. We can accurately summarize what the sources say without violating impartial. We aren't casting doubt. Springee (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Your repeated use of the word "impartial" doesn't address the actual issue. Using euphemistic language is editorializing to over-state the significance of a fringe perspective, which is directly contrary to the policy you keep citing. The simplest way to explain to readers that reliable sources have refuted their claims is to say that the claims are false, because Wikipedia accepts reliable sources. I do not accept that evasive and euphemistic language is "impartial", it is misleading at best and WP:PROFRINGE at worst. Grayfell (talk) 06:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Grayfell's position is entirely right; on this topic in particular there's no place for false balance. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

This isn't a question of false balance. Additionally, the section title is problematic because the section covers more than just vaccine health information. Opposing mandates is not a question of misinformation though the motives for opposition may be based on bad/misinformation. Thelen Shar was correct to make the section title more neutral. Also, since Grayfell is concerned that I'm just providing the link vs text from a policy, per NPOV/IMPARTIAL, "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes." When we put "false" or "misinformation" in a section header we are engaging in the dispute. We can put that material in the article body when sourced correctly but it should not go in section headers. Springee (talk) 12:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

"When we put "false" or "misinformation" in a section header we are engaging in the dispute." How so? I'm not seeing engagement in the dispute, many things are objectively false or misinformation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

We are stating one side is correct or wrong. Additionally there is nothing false (I presume) about the claim that they raised objections to vaccine mandates. Let's suppose they claim Wikipedia servers are located on the moon. That would be a false or incorrect claim. Calling it "false" can imply that they know it isn't true but they are trying to mislead. I think we can all agree such a claim would be "incorrect". When the section header is "False claims about Wikipedia" this can imply they are knowingly trying to mislead others about Wikipedia. But if they actually believe what they are saying then it is wrong for us to say or even imply they are trying to mislead people with regards to Wikipedia's server location. Thus saying "false claims" is no longer neutral since it can imply not just information that isn't correct but also intent. A title like "Claims regarding Wikipedia" avoids any implication and avoids taking sides. Hence it is strictly IMPARTIAL in a way that "falsely" is not. I understand that since this is a current issue there is a strong desire to use the emotional language we often see in the media. That isn't encyclopedic. We should be describing this as if it were hundreds of years ago and has no impact on the present. Springee (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the WaPo and the Politico article I just added are pretty clear about TPUSA having spread falsehoods and misrepresentations about the vaccines being experimental and the Biden administration sending "goons" door-to-door to force people to get vaccinated against their will. We should also mention that TPUSA is "capitalizing on the stark polarization around vaccine policy." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC) Actually, "spreading false claims" is neutral language. It doesn't matter whether they believe that the falsehoods they are spreading are true or not; what matters is that they are falsehoods and that they are spreading them. If the text said that they are spreading disinformation it would imply that they are knowingly spreading misinformation, i.e., false information. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I would actually say these citations aren't clear in labeling Turning Point USA in particular. I have reviewed the citations and here is what I have found.

The WaPo article only states Turning Point USA spreads falsehoods in the sub-headline which WP:HEADLINES says is not WP:RS. It DOES say:

"But the communications by Turning Point USA and its affiliate, Turning Point Action, reflect the increasingly hard line taken by the group"

So since the context there is about Vaccine policies/mandates. I guess we could change the phrasing to just say they take a hard line against Covid-19 Vaccine mandates. But once again no where does the article specifically state Turning Point USA spreads falsehoods about Covid 19/vaccines? Maybe Kirk and/or Turning Point Action.

I honestly think you need to remove the Vanity Fair article as well as the Politico article, the ONLY mention of TPUSA in those articles is to preface Charlie Kirk's position within the company. I'm serious. Please take those citations out. Or perhaps you can highlight the part that actually says (without SYNTH) that Turning Point USA spread misinformation about Covid 19, or how Turning Point USA made misleading claims about planned vaccination policies. Eruditess (talk) 06:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Support for NRA and fossil fuels

Turning Point USA supports the NRA and the use of fossil fuels

Given the Donors Trust funding, TPUSA appears to be a front group for industry that deliberately disrupts academia and government and produces propaganda and disinformation to generate support for corporate platforms such as deregulation and low taxation. Viriditas (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Turning Point paying Guilfoyle's speaker's fee at January 6, 2021, rally

Re this revert: Both RS point out that Turning Point Action is an affiliate of Turning Point USA, that both are run by Charlie Kirk, and that Kirk is a friend of Guilfoyle's fiance, Donald Trump, Jr. Also, the links on March to Save America's website, both before ("Turning Point USA Action") and after the change of the header ("Turning Point Action") go to Turning Point USA's website ("SHOP, DONATE, JOIN"). Turning Point Action, a 501(c)(4) organization and an affiliate of the better-known Turning Point USA, a 501(c)(3). The difference is that Turning Point Action has more leeway to engage in political activity Arguably it can go into the Turning_Point_USA#Turning_Point_Action section but IMO it needs to stay in the Turning_Point_USA#2021_United_States_Capitol_attack section as one of the events leading up to the riot. Additional mention on Kirk's and TP Action's page, fine, but it needs to be mentioned on this page, too. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Space4Time3Continuum2x, I don’t think the focus should be on adding the information on Guilfoyle back in, (although it absolutely shouldn’t be). But rather that this section (2021 Capitol attack) as a whole is highly problematic for a number of reasons. It absolutely fails several Wikipedia policies and needs to be completely removed – there is no WP:RS that specifically states that TPUSA was involved in any aspect of January 6th and using Wikipedia’s voice to indicate that there was is not only slanderous but a clear violation of WP:SYNTHESIS.

In fact, two of the sources (The Daily Dot & Newsweek)used in that section as citations actually printed retractions:

 ”Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly referred to Turning Point USA (TPUSA) instead of Turning Point Action (TPA).”

As discussed on your talk page previously, Turning Point specifically created two organizations, one that is prohibited from “supporting a political candidate” and one that is “allowed to participate in politics” – why would Turning Point use TPUSA to intentionally violate 501(c)(3) regulations when they can use TPAction and be in complete compliance?

There is absolutely no WP:RS specifically stating that TPUSA was involved in January 6th; common sense infers that “Turning Point” in a political situation refers to “TPAction” and not “TPUSA”.

Assuming that the WP:RS is referring to TPUSA is an extreme, illogical, and unsubstantiated position; adding January 6th to the TPUSA article is using the Wikipedia voice to indicate that TPUSA is violating their 501(c)(3) regulations when there is absolutely no WP:RS that states that.

You have stated that your position is to keep things that are reported under Turning Point Action on this page. You stated you do so because you believe that TPUSA and TP-ACTION have the same leadership and personnel, therefore must be treated as a single entity. Where is the reliable source that states that? I mean I understand that Charlie Kirk is involved with both but is there some outlet stating that the two separate organizations share personnel? I don’t think there is. To assume so is WP:OR.

The reality of the situation is, there is a Turning Point Action page that exists. That is where information like this belongs. Period. Take it there, keep it there. Having it here is misleading and wrong. No matter how you try to rationalize it. MaximusEditor (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• It’s two sentences, hardly too much detail for the top "Turning Point" article. (I’m still of the opinion that Turning Point Action shouldn’t have been spun off to an article that’s hardly more than a stub and likely to remain that way.) Turning Point USA sends students to D.C. for January 6, in buses paid for by Turning Point Action. Turning Point USA hosts the annual Student Action Summit, and you can register (and donate) for it on TPUSA's web page (archived) as well as on TP Action's web page (last archived before DeSantis was added to the list of speakers). The group, which has non-profit charity status that bars political work, also has a political arm called Turning Point Action that can do election work. (Guardian) They're both nonprofits; in two years or so we’ll find out who paid the speaker fees for Trump, DeSantis, Trump Jr., and Guilfoyle. And, since they're both nonprofits, their officers, directors, and top employees are a matter of public record. Both list Kirk, Sodeika, and Bowyer. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

RFC on moving non related content out to its source article

The following discussion 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.

---

Should Turning Point Action content (that is independent of Turning Point USA) be moved from the Turning Point USA article over to the Turning Point Action page –- support or oppose? MaximusEditor (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Strongly Support – Charlie Kirk specifically created two organizations; Turning Point Action (a 501(c)(4) nonprofit that is permitted to participate in political activities) and Turning Point USA (a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that is not permitted to participate in political activities). Posting TPAction political activities on the TPUSA article uses the Wikipedia WP:VOICE to imply that TPUSA is operating outside of their 501(c)(3) regulations. This creates blatant WP:BLPGROUP & WP:REDFLAG issues.

Now for any information that WP:RS say Turning Point Action is linked to Turning Point USA, keep it in the article. I think that’s fair. Keep what is linked in rs citations, and take out what is not. But to be fair you can’t use WP:SYNTH or WP:OR or a mix of both to rationalize keeping erroneous information in the article. That’s why I created this RFC, there is a history of editors (self admitting) to keeping information pertaining solely to Turning Point Action on TPUSA’s page. These editors “feel” obligation to group them under the same umbrella, because they share three common employees out of what hundreds (Still want to see the RS stating that)? If you want to keep material in this article, WP:BURDEN falls on you, please find RS stating specifics, not WP:SYNTH. - MaximusEditor (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Turning Point Action is an organization founded by the Turning Point USA founder that uses marketing and branding styles common with Turning Point USA, per sources. A brief description of what Turning Point Action is about and what it does, along with a "main template" towards the Turning Point Action article, would be sufficient. Which, as it happens, is the exact status we have today. Turning Point USA has created what are essentially unofficial subsidiaries. -The Gnome (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
• This is a WP:SPLIT matter, not an RfC matter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  I also agree that this is a WP:SIZESPLIT issue. As it stands Turning Point USA page is, 105,147 bytes. Under SizeSplit rule of thumb it says this about article size:

  " > 100kb Almost certainly should be divided"

  With regard to not an RFC Matter - the intent of the RFC is to remove content from the article that is not relevant to TPUSA but should be included in the TPAction article. MaximusEditor (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Given that there is a Turning Point Action page, activities by TPA should be there, not here. Springee (talk)

I'm surely missing something, again. An article about subect A quite often contains information also about related subjects B, C, D, etc. That information, sometimes, when B or C are important enough to have their own, separate article, comes with the tag "See main article...". I thought it was common practice to have both the main article on B and a shorter presentation of B within the context of article A. Here we have a bona fide subsidiary. -The Gnome (talk) 09:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is arguing that content related between subject A & subject B should be removed. The intent of the RFC is to remove content that is independent (meaning, content that does not directly include the organization) / irrelevant to the entity that has the edit. But to relate subject A and subject B in a manner that isn't stated in WP:RS would be WP:SYNTH and also breaching WP:OR; especially when the content is not permitted under the Charter regulations of the organization (which uses the Wikipedia voice to imply the organization is operating contrary to it's legal requirements). MaximusEditor (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

That is not what your RfC is about. The RfC is not about text not based on sources, since, in that case, no RfC is needed: the baseless text is simply and swiftly defenestrated. -The Gnome (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Turning Point Action is a little-known 501(c)(4) affiliate of Turning Point USA, a 501(c)(3), run by the same people. It is often not possible to distinguish between the activities of the two because they overlap in time and place and people, with Kirk running the show. As the Gnome already pointed out, the status we have today is sufficient. (BTW, this is not an RfC, it's a discussion on a talk page.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x , you say: It is often not possible to distinguish between the activities of the two because they overlap in time and place and people, with Kirk running the show. This is your reasoning and justification for keeping material not associated with Turning Point USA specifically on the page? We are Wikipedia editors, we are just suppose to publish what the reliable sources report. I think when you start to decide "what is hard to distinguish" , that falls under WP:OR. Turning Point Action can not be "little known organization", how is it that they have enough WP:SIGCOV to create an article? This is because they are well known, the media has enough material published to have their own page, but only if we can start organizing the information and putting it where it belongs instead of dumping the information on this page. Eruditess (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support - I think that the rules are pretty clear. If WP:RS mentions Turning Point USA as well as Turning Point Action in the same article, both relating to a singular topic, you can cover it on both article pages. If there is content on this page outlining Turning Point Action alone, with no mention/connection to Turning Point USA, then it absolutely does not belong on this page. To condone that it should be on this page sets a really bad precedence for all of Wikipedia. Eruditess (talk) 19:40, 20 July 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.

Mission statement

I WP:BOLDly moved group's own mission statement out of the first sentence and into the history section, so the first sentence is now closer to how it appeared in this article in July 2022. Although some cited RS mention the mission statement, none use it in their first sentence and few use it prominently, so per MOS:LEADREL and WP:INDY, Wikipedia should stick to the third-party sources' words. The unofficial WP:MISSION essay gives other reasons not to emphasize mission statements, notably so that the article does not appear unduly promotional. Llll5032 (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

White supremacy

The talk page editors above are absolutely right, this group is a mix of the KKK/ISIS/IDF, all far-right religiously patriarchal white supremacist terrorist groups. This is not meant to be an anti-white poster. This is to spread the word. Mizzou will not kick out a member threatening to kill Black students. TPUSA is a terrorist org, and so are a portion of its members.

https://kansascitydefender.com/justice/white-mizzou-student-racism-kill-n-word/ 2600:1012:B061:9148:1D4C:C9D1:6729:2E3 (talk) 05:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, there's more!!

> Miller is President of University of Missouri’s white supremacist, right-wing extremist organization, Turning Point USA. Turning Point USA spreads the same “Great Replacement” extremist ideology that was included in the manifesto of the Buffalo Mass Killer, who massacred 10 Black people at a grocery store in Western New York earlier this year.

2600:1012:B061:9148:1D4C:C9D1:6729:2E3 (talk) 05:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I think these prior statements are dated, per WP:RECENTISM. She is no longer President of the Mizzou TPUSA local chapter according to WP:RS ( link here & here as well). There is also RS outlining TPUSA condoning her own action to remove herself from any furthermore involvement in the local chapter and publicly stating that the language she used has no place within the organization. - MaximusEditor (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Far-right

[https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/06/us/politics/republicans-young-voters.html {New York Times)] [https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2022/11/10/dark-maga-hard-right-despair-after-red-trickle-election (SPLC last November)][https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2022/10/20/far-right-student-organization-brings-extremists-mcinnes-doyle-penn-state-and-tennessee (SPLC last October)]. I'm sure there are more sources. Yet no mention anywhere that TPUSA has been described as far-right. Doug Weller talk 12:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

A sentence that surveys the various ideological descriptions of TPUSA by RS would be a good addition. Llll5032 (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

We should be careful with listing descriptors. We should show, not tell when it comes to these things. We also have to be careful that we aren't cherry picking vs showing very common descriptors. If 50% of sources say X then we should. If 5% say X then perhaps they aren't writing objectively. I would be extremely reluctant to use descriptors from the SPLC given their non-objectivity and some of their other recent issues. Perhaps using them for hard facts but using them for subjective descriptions seems problematic. Springee (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

A neutral measure could be to count descriptors from only WP:GREL sources and include some academic and book sources if they are available. Llll5032 (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Llll5032, I am a bit confused by your comment:

"A sentence that surveys the various ideological descriptions of TPUSA by RS would be a good addition."

I just read your good faith talk page post about removing the mission of Turning Point USA. I have some issues with your logic. I do understand that with most corporations or companies a mission (statement) is self serving and/or promotional. Therefore I understand the policies (Such as the unofficial WP:MISSION essay) put in place to deter writing articles in such a way. However, I would disagree with your statement that the WP:RS citing the mission of Turning Point USA are not used prominently. It is used in several Reliable Sources as a descriptor to do exactly what you ask for in your comment. "Outline the various ideologies of Turning Point USA". If it were solely a WP:PRIMARY sourcing from their website, I could understand, but almost every instance of an article mentioning Turning Point, they follow it up with their mission as a descriptor. Why is it that so many reliable sources describe Turning Point USA by mentioning their mission, yet you find it wrong that a wikipedia article does so as well? I am going to have to invoke WP:COMMON. The sentence you removed-

" Turning Point is an American conservative nonprofit organization that advocates to identify, educate, train, and organize students to “promote the principles of freedom, free markets, and limited government."

does not have any sort of promotion or self serving aspects. Please reinstate the mission into the lead, I see no legitimate reason why it shouldn't be there and it literally answers your call for a ideological description using WP:RS citation/information. - MaximusEditor (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:INDY we prioritize third-party descriptions instead of self-descriptions, to "build non-promotional articles that fairly portray the subject, without undue attention to the subject's own views". A fair approach could be to compare the group's description of itself (which, as you and I wrote, was cited in some sources), with other descriptions by independent sources. The mission statement is currently in the history section (where I moved it; I did not remove it), and perhaps some of the third-party descriptors could be surveyed there also, or perhaps they could all be compared somewhere in the top section. Llll5032 (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

There should be no problem in using the SPLC's opinion so long as it is attributed. Having a bias isn't a problem, we allow bias and an anti-hate bias isn't a bad thing. We use it frequently in the lead of articles. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources does say its inclusion in the lead should not be automatic but done on a case by case basis, which is fine by me, but the SPLC should definitely be used in the article somewhere. Doug Weller talk 11:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Mention of Cease & Desist against MSNBC in Controversies section

Its worth mentioning the Cease & Desist against MSNBC, aimed at opinion columnist Julio Ricardo Varela for calling Turning Point USA “a MAGA White supremacist cult”. They did issue a revision after cease and desist was issued. I'm thinking most suitable section is "controversies."

1)Fox News coverage

2)MSN article

3)Mediate article

Thanks--MaximusEditor (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Fox News (1) and Mediaite (both 2 and 3) are only marginally reliable. Do any better sources discuss the case? Llll5032 (talk) 03:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I know they are marginally reliable sources, but there are three of them all corroborating the same story and using case by case critical thinking (as it instructs us to do on the WP:RSP page when presented with marginally reliable sources), we can use WP:COMMON sense to come to the conclusion that this did actually happen and a cease and desist was in fact issued. I would also say that this isn't an exceptional claim, so Fox News and Mediaite will suffice. MaximusEditor (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Source 2 is Source 3 syndicated on a different website, so you have listed two marginal sources in total. A relevant policy is WP:PROPORTION, which says we "treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject". So the sources should be reliable to include a fact. Have you found any better sources? Llll5032 (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Here are two additional sources that aren't syndicated.

1)CNS NEWS

2)AMERICAN WIRE

These all cover the details of the cease and desist, which outline controversial slandering a particular journalist wrote against Turning Point USA. Now that there are 4 sources, I definitely do not see how inclusion is still debatable? - MaximusEditor (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

CNS News is considered unreliable by Wikipedia as well as all other subdivisions of Media Research Center. I've never heard of American Wire; but I looked at it and it isn't close to acceptable. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Using CNS News as a sole citation would be unreliable verifying facts on Wikipedia; but, it is not the only source. Remember, with sources and Wikipedia WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. When it corroborates with three other sources, you must use WP:COMMON sense. In this instance, for this article, the context is not fabricating any information. For the American Wire piece, can you please state how an article that has screenshots of Charlie Kirk's Twitter feed showing the actual, legally filed Cease and Desist document as being not close to acceptable (CNS News and Americanwire both show screenshots)? So your position is that the Cease and Desist is not factual/verifaible? Here are the Twitter Screenshots which at this point along with 4 corroborating articles satisfies WP:V . Please review WP:RSPUSE - "For example, even extremely low-quality sources, such as social media, may sometimes be used as self-published sources for routine information about the subjects themselves. - MaximusEditor (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• Agree , this is notable, much more notable than most of the other content in the Controversies section. I think readers who come to this article would find this information informative. This information definitely warrants inclusion in the “controversies” section. I’m confused as to why editors would challenge the verifiability of this information, as links to the screenshots from a legally filed “cease & desist” have been provided. Several sources all corroborating that MSNBC columnist had to change his op-ed (Here is link to another article that corroborates that msnbc was sent a cease and desist). Add it in, I dont see any grounds to remove it.

Eruditess (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

---

I have removed references to "flvoicenews" and "americanwirenews." These are not reliable sources. This subject is amply covered in the mainstream press (and even a bit in scholarly sources); we do not need (and should not use) bad sources. Neutrality^talk 19:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Paragraph in the lead is WP:UNDUE and needs removal

There was this edit made albeit in good faith by an IP editor that added this text into the lead:

“TPUSA has been involved in multiple controversies, including allegations of racism and criticism from other conservative groups and figures”

This edit was added in hastily and is WP:UNDUE. If you look at the controversies section; you have two instances of TPUSA employees exhibiting racist comments on social media, who were swiftly terminated and rebuked with a public statement from TPUSA leadership stating “Racism has no place at Turning Point USA”.

The rest of the controversies section contains opinion profiles from collegiate journalists, an occurrence where non-associated alt-right and far right activists crashed a TPUSA speaking event and two Media Outlet allegations that resulted in Cease & Desist Orders by TPUSA.

This editor lumped all of these “controversies” together and then highlighted two instances of racism as if this is prevalent enough to warrant inclusion in the lead. Inclusion of the two instances of racism that were rebuked and summarizing it in the lead is breaching WP:REDFLAG, WP:BLPGROUP and blatantly violates encyclopedic WP:TONE. Out of the two cited sources the New Yorker piece may be reliable, but that doesn’t make the content covered a mainstream view. As for the attributed HuffPo piece, we can see that WP:RSP categorizes HuffPo as openly biased. We should not use attributed opinions as weight for the lead.

This paragraph needs to be removed.

Same logic goes for the “criticism from other conservative groups and figures” text in the lead. This is Undue was well, it’s a minority view, and lacks weight for inclusion in the lead. This lazy editing can be dangerous as an uneducated reader coming to the page could think that TPUSA is a racist organization strife with controversies. MaximusEditor (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

What are other independent WP:BESTSOURCES saying about the controversies? Is there a lot of WP:SIGCOV? Llll5032 (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The Chronicle of Higher Education source says that But the latest critic to blast Kirk’s group is a fellow conservative organization. Young America’s Foundation, founded more than 50 years ago at the home of William F. Buckley Jr., has written a blistering 12-page memorandum (reprinted below) “outlining the lack of integrity, honesty, experience, and judgment of this growing organization.” ... The memo also alleges that one of Turning Point USA’s methods for inflating attendance at its events is “boosting numbers with racists & Nazi sympathizers.” The New Yorker says Former Turning Point employees say that the organization was a difficult workplace and rife with tension, some of it racial. ... Speakers at Turning Point events on various college campuses have been accused of going out of their way to thumb their noses at ethnic and cultural sensitivities. Those are probably enough to support something attributed. Academic criticism can be seen here, though it is perhaps a bit more nuanced. --Aquillion (talk) 05:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Can we remove this sentence from the lead and put in the body?

This sentence:

"According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, TPUSA has attempted to influence student government elections in an effort to "combat liberalism on college and university campuses."

This information is not anywhere in the body and this sentence makes the lead look redundant because we already have a prior sentence saying:

"according to The Chronicle of Higher Education, TPUSA "is now the dominant force in campus conservatism"."

I don't think either one of these attributions by the Chronicle of Higher Education is notable enough to put into the lead or has enough WP:WEIGHT in the article body. Eruditess (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The Chronicle of Higher Education is a good source. Do other RS agree or disagree with the assessments? Llll5032 (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying Chronicle of Higher Education isn't a good source, I know it is considered reliable. It just been hoisted to the lead paragraph with no mention in the body of somewhat thin statements. I think that it belongs in the body. Not the lead paragraph. Doesnt have enough WP:WEIGHT. Eruditess (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that usually information in the second paragraph should also be described later in the article, and MOS:LEADREL recommends that, but it is unclear to me that this information should be removed from the top. Does the Chronicle offer information about the group's influence in student government elections that clarifies if it is important? Are there examples that should be noted in the body? Are other RS describing the activity? Llll5032 (talk) 03:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

In that second paragraph, it starts by talking about the Professor Watchlist. The last part of that same paragraph talks about the Schoolboard watchlist. The theme is obviously watchlists. I don't really see how the random sentence attributing the Chronicle of Higher Education is relevant, doesnt have anything to do with watchlists. Also I still don't see how your argument is justifying something staying in the lead that has no weight in the body of the article. That would set a terrible precedent of putting things in the lead sentence that lack weight. Eruditess (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The first two sentences appear describe the group's activities at colleges, and the third sentence describes local school boards. I did not write the paragraph, but that organization appears logical to me. Did you find out more about the context from the Chronicle or what other RS are saying? Llll5032 (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Coming back to this, @Llll5032. When I google "Turning Point USA influences student government elections", there is no real WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources discussing interference. There are a couple of WP:RSSM (student media/college publications) that discuss a group called "Campus Victory project" that Turning Point USA goes through to contact students. I think with the lack of coverage by RS, I still motion to move this from the lead section and mention it in the body. Eruditess (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Eruditess, there appear to be five cited sources in the Turning Point USA#Involvement in student government elections section, which the second-paragraph sentence appears to summarize. Llll5032 (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@Llll5032 , The first sentence in the Turning Point USA#Involvement in student government elections section is what we are basing the summary in the lead off of:

"Turning Point USA has been involved in influencing student government elections at a number of colleges and universities."

If you take the three sources from that sentence, you have two of them citing the first. The New Yorker & Politico piece explicitly cite “Inside a Stealth Plan for Political Influence” by Michael Vasquez as their source of information.  This is a situation of WP:ONESOURCE since these 3 citations are not independent of each other as explained via Wikipedia:3REFS.  The two articles citing the first need to be removed.  Thus leaving a single WP:RS, which doesn’t warrant WP:WEIGHT for inclusion in the lead.  The following two sentences, use a Media Matters WP:MREL citation that cites a WP:RSSM (The Diamondback) as its source of information (once again, WP:ONESOURCE of a marginally reliable article citing a student publication).  The student publication (Diamondback) talks about a singular incident of The Unity party from (Maryland) not disclosing nonmonetary contributions in the form of flyer design from TPUSA, and withdrawing from the race. As well as assisting in flyer design and distributing flyers at University of Wisconsin-Madison, where it was not in violation of any student government laws. This leaves quite a flimsy sourcing for quite a substantial accusation.  The word "influence", while neutral, seems to be a WP:WEASELWORD that might confuse uneducated readers that TPUSA knowingly impacts student government elections illegally. When Kirk has openly said that the support given would be in the form of professional training in campaign and leadership techniques and direct financial assistance. Once again, I think it absolutely belongs in the body. The argument to keep it in the lead just falls apart when you consider that the weight of that accusation is from a single journalist. This all seems to be in good faith, just whomever the editor was who contributed those original edits didn't realize it was all singularly sourced. Eruditess (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Eruditess, it would appear that the additional reliable sources confirm the WP:WEIGHT of the Chronicle piece, which is already a good RS. The governing policies for the matter should be MOS:LEADREL and WP:PROPORTION (about due weight in the lead section and the article) rather than the two you cited (which measure the notability of subjects for their own article). If you are concerned that "influence" implies illegality, then you could propose another word that is used by the RS. Llll5032 (talk) 01:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• If we were going to remove one or the other, I think the first one is more informative (it covers what they do and the overall focus of their politics in more detail, whereas the second one just says they're more important than other conservative campus groups right now, in a way that risks becoming WP:PUFFERY if the context of the other quote is removed.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Charter buses

On January 4, 2021, Kirk announced that Turning Point would be sending more than 80 buses to a January 6, 2021, Trump rally near the White House in Washington, D.C, to protest the outcome of the election. They sent seven buses with approximately 350 participants.

This number of buses seems really low compared to other sources, some of which say TPUSA sent between 80-100 buses full of people. There’s also eyewitness reports of people who lived in the neighborhoods where the buses parked. Not sure what the actual numbers are here. Viriditas (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

A spokesman said that Kirk eventually sent a half-dozen buses, per the WaPo source in the article. There were other organized groups who also sent buses to D.C. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

"80-100 buses full of people"

This is obviously total nonsense and of course lacks any reliable source. 82.38.214.252 (talk) 07:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Description of Jack Posobiec

Nomoskedasticity, please do not restore[23] a contested change without getting consensus first. The description here should be IMPARTIAL which the version you restored is not and is new to the article. Please self revert. Springee (talk) 12:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

As the Jack Posobiec article makes plainly evident, the description is in no way "partial". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

That is why we provide a link to the article where the justification of the contentious label is shown. Since we don't do that in this article we should stick with the long standing version which uses descriptors that don't have a contentious LABEL issue. Also, since this is a newly made change and it has been contested the correct process (see BRD) is to discuss the change, not make it again without discussion. Again, please self revert. Springee (talk) 12:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, one additional note, per the notice at the top of the page, you needed to discuss your change before making it thus you are in violation of the page rules. Again, please self revert. Springee (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

In any case surely this is easily fixed by adding sources from his article? Doug Weller talk 15:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

If we are going to pick labels why pick that one? Per IMPARTIAL shouldn't we pick labels without so much loading, that is the one that has been on the article for a while? Why pick the most contentious? Springee (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The previous edit was WP:IMPARTIAL, it didn't use contentious labeling. @Nomoskedasticity please revert back to the impartial phrasing. MaximusEditor (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

That is not helpful. If and when those sources fail to make a connection between Posobiec and Turning Point USA, you're citing them out of context and thus committing original research. Politrukki (talk) 09:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The sources don't fail [24] to make the connection. Llll5032 (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I've added references, as suggested by Doug Weller. This argument about "impartial" -- it's bogus and I suspect even those making it know why. The description would be "partial" if there was any serious dispute about whether Posobiec is a conspiracy theorist; given dispute, we would be wrong to take sides via use of the description. But there isn't -- he's a conspiracy theorist. I won't do other editors the disservice of imagining that they believe otherwise. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

You are violating NOCON by making this change without a consensus. Did you check to see if there was prior consensus before you made the change? As to your argument, why did you decide that particular descriptor was the valid one to use rather than a different one from the opening of his BLP? Do you think using a contentious label is more impartial than using one that isn't contentious? Springee (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

It also appears that all of the sources you added predate the TPUSA announcement. Springee (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The description appears to be easily the most common one that reliable sources use for Posobiec. Springee, hypothetically, can you describe what kind of source you would not object to for the claim? Llll5032 (talk) 06:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

(Courtesy ping for Springee.) Llll5032 (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

In doing a quick google news review of the first two pages of hits it I found examples of it but I also found other sources including CNN and the NTY that didn't use the term. An NPR article talking about conspiracy theories related to Jeffrey Epstein described Posobiec as a "far-right internet personality". They didn't say he was a conspiracy theorist. This really gets back to a BLP concern I have (and perhaps this should be raised at BLPN). When an article mentions a BLP subject tangentially, without any great detail, what limitations should we have on the labels we apply in that case? In general these labels are something I think we should really avoid in almost all cases. My view is encyclopedic writing should tell, not label. But beyond that, in a case like this there isn't much substance in this article to support the label (in fact there was none). Also consider that a number of labels have been used to describe Posobiec. Why do we pick one vs another? Why isn't his roll as an internet pundit the one we pick? Internet pundit at least is an impartial label. It has no serious baggage that needs to be defended or justified. It's not like we are hiding the details, they are in Posobiec's article. I guess another argument against using conspiracy theorist is it can imply why he was hired. Consider if we have a news station that is hiring someone who as done sports casting and the weather. The new job is for a weatherman. If we said News 5 hired a new sports caster (factually true based on his prior work) it might imply he was hired to be a sports caster, not a weatherman. Are we going to claim Posobiec was hired to be a conspiracy theorist? Did the sources say that was why he was hired? Springee (talk) 03:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

He was cited as collaborating on the television show (already included in this article) but no other reasons for the hiring were given by RS. Springee, in your review of Google News results, did you see any of his attributes that were described with equal or more frequency than his promotion of conspiracy theories? Llll5032 (talk) 03:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Conservative, far-right (also a potential label issue), commentator, influencer were all in there. Even if conspiracy theorist were the most common, if it were in say only 20% then I would still say we shouldn't use it in a case like this where it's not clearly relevant to why he was hired nor is it supported by the sources we have. Springee (talk) 04:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

What sources that we have don't support it? Llll5032 (talk) 07:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Currently we have two sources in the article. The DailyBeast is too biased to use for contentious labels. I says he is known for spreading a particular conspiracy theory (pizza gate) but not in general. Again, DailyBeast is a generally poor source for such claims. Yes, the DB can't be taken to refute the claim but to put it in wiki-voice and without evidence we need something better. Again we don't have to use labels like this when we point to a primary article with all the details. Springee (talk) 13:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The cited DB article lists that he came to TPUSA from conspiracy-peddling cable network One America News, that he is infamous for being one of the top promoters of Pizzagate, a conspiracy and that he has continued to peddle hoaxes and bogus claims in recent years. But I agree with you that we should not source a contentious claim solely to the DB. Better sources exist. You have written what kind of sourcing would not persuade you, but it would be helpful to know what could. Can you describe what kind of source, hypothetically, you might find more acceptable than the DB for a subject "commonly described that way in reliable sources" per WP:BLPSTYLE? Also, are you sure that the phrasing you have been removing from the article is a WP:LABEL at all? Llll5032 (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

First, the DailyBeast is far to partisan with a writing style that targets persuasion rather than hard facts. Their descriptions are far from encyclopedic. Also, hoaxes and bogus claims can include conspiracy theories but that's not inherent. Additionally, the DB article isn't providing substance to support their characterizations, they are just making them. So overall they are not a good source for applying contentious claims/labels. But this goes beyond that. Per IMPARTIAL and because this is a BLP, we shouldn't just off hand drop accusatory claims/labels (value driven labels etc) in an article. If we are going to put such labels in an article they either need to be 100% bullet proof (the serial killer Ted Bundy) or supported in the article itself. We don't have those things here. Springee (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Llll5032, you'll never get Springee to change their mind on this. They will simply raise the bar as needed. If you provide what's indicated at one stage, they'll come up with something else. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Please FOC and keep your comments CIVIL. Springee (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The basis of your logic is that he is commonly thought of as a “conspiracy theorist”; but there is no merit to that argument. There hasn’t been a WP:RS in the past 4 ½ years that has applied this to him. Springee makes a good point. If you Google “Jack Posobiec Conspiracy Theorist”, in the first couple of result pages, yes you will find a few articles that label him as a conspiracy theorist; but most of these articles fall under one of two pitfalls that disqualify them as reliable sources. Either they are merely WP:HEADLINES and/or WP:RSOPINION (or both). There are a handful (maybe three to four articles at the most) of actual “reliable”, integral, reputable sources that call him a “Conspiracy theorist” directly in the body of the article that is not an opinion piece. Three to four reliable sources is not enough to clear WP:BLP protections. Labeling somebody as a conspiracy theorist is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, and it requires exceptional sources. Three or four articles isn’t “exceptional sourcing” it would take much, much more.- MaximusEditor (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Um, here's a Politico article from five days ago referring to him as "Pizzagate conspiracist Jack Posobiec". Also New York Times, Dec 2022, NPR, August 2022, Wired, December 2022 ... and so on. I'm sure it's trendy amongst the left to label right-wing antagonists as "conspiracy theorists" to try to discredit them, but if there's one character that deserves the label, it's this chap. Black Kite (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

MaximusEditor, also, his Wikipedia article notes his promotion of newer conspiracy theories, including one in 2022 about Ukraine. Llll5032 (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Is there really a BLP issue if a description simply notes the best-sourced description in a subject's own Wikipedia BLP article? Llll5032 (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Black Kite, I have reviewed all the articles you’ve posted; yes they are all recent, but still none of them hold any merit in the case of labeling Jack Posobiec as a Conspiracy Theorist on TPUSA's article. These sources actually confirm what @Springee and I have been saying all along - “There are better, more suitable neutral labels.” They are right there in the articles you linked.

The NYTimes article doesn’t call him a conspiracy theorist anywhere in the article, it calls him a far right commentator “known” for promoting the pizzagate conspiracy theory.

The NPR article doesn’t call him a conspiracy theorist anywhere in the article, it labels him as a far right internet personality.

The Wired article doesn’t call him a conspiracy theorist, it calls him a conspiracy-minded writer.

The Politico piece calls him a Pizza-Gate conspiracist.

• Notice how the labels are “far right internet personality”, “far right commentator”, “conspiracy minded writer”?

Clearly the NYTimes, NPR, and Wired have changed their labeling in light of Posobiec being on record when he stated that Pizzagate is “ridiculous”. Obviously the WP:RS have conceded the point that he is not a “conspiracy theorist”; but some Wiki Editors continue to promote this position apparently using WP:Synth.

So if we look at the articles you just shared and we take the labels they used all we are left with is articles calling him an “Internet personality”, “commentator” and writer.- MaximusEditor (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not how WP:SYNTH works, since there is absolutely no problem giving someone who has persistently promoted conspiracy theories a "conspiracy theorist" (he's still doing it, Ukraine bioweapons is the latest one). However, looking at the above conversation it does appear pointless trying to explain this to you. Black Kite (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, our wording in contention says he is "an activist known for promoting conspiracy theories", not a "conspiracy theorist". The six sources removed from the article [25][26] support the seven-word description, and no editor has added the two-word "label". Llll5032 (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

That is not true. All material about living persons must strictly adhere to NOR and NPOV. The connection between Posobiec, "conspiracy theorist", and Turning Point USA must be blatantly obvious in the sources. Politrukki (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the connection is obvious [27] in the sources. Llll5032 (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The connection would need to be more explicit than that. Let's use a hypothetical example. This study says both Trump and Clinton promoted conspiracy theories in the 2016 United States presidential election:

The 2016 United States presidential election was steeped in conspiracy theories promoted by and about the major party candidates. Donald Trump questioned the connection between the father of fellow Republican Party nominee, Ted Cruz, and John F. Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald (McCaskill, 2016), and Hillary Clinton accused Trump of being a "puppet" of Russian President Vladimir Putin (Blake, 2016).

Based on that, would you attach a "conspiracy theorist" label to Trump and Clinton in the 2016 United States presidential election article and why? Politrukki (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

You could discuss that WP:OTHERCONTENT at their talk pages. The Washington Post [28] and The New Republic[29] are clear, and both of them describe Posobiec's involvement with the TPUSA/Human Events project. There are many other independent sources for the description at Posobiec's article. Llll5032 (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Labeling Posobiec as a conspiracy theorist is totally inappropriate in this context. This is the Turning Point USA article, you do not have any WP:RS that tie conspiracy theories with Posobiec and TPUSA. You are using the Wikipedia voice to tell readers that TPUSA hires people because they promote Conspiracy Theories - there is no basis, at all, for this. In my opinion, adding the conspiracy label is defaming TPUSA. For the past 5 years, Posobiec has not promoted any conspiracy theories and there is not indication, at all, that TPUSA hired him because he is a Conspiracy Theorist. They hired him because he is a political activist, that is the mainstream current perspective. If you insist on using a label; "political activist" is accurate and appropriate, "conspiracy theorist" is inappropriate and defamatory That is the appropriate WP:IMPARTIAL label, which is what the original phrasing was.- MaximusEditor (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I support the conspiracy theorist wording. This is the guy who said a secret group was meeting at a pizza place to abuse kids. Impartial means saying what RS says, not writing sentences without adjectives. Vizorblaze (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Keep "Conspiracy theories" out of Turning Point USA's article. No relevance on Turning Point USA's article. Political Activist is fine as is. Eruditess (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't be silly. He's a conspiracy theorist. Pizzagate, Ukraine, pipe bombs, blah. In fact, if you were thinking of someone to call a conspiracy theorist and not be contradicted, you couldn't think of many people more likely than him. Black Kite (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Emerson College

The Emerson chapter was suspended in ?2021 for handing out stickers negative about (the ruling party of) China. https://wng.org/roundups/censorship-on-campus-is-kinda-sus-1633979226 . 164.47.179.32 (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Tyler Bowyer (who no longer works at Turning Point USA) from leadership section

Read through this Wapo article, and it states Bowyer is COO of Turning Point Action. He no longer works at Turning Point USA. A quick google of his linkdin profile and you can verify this is accurate. (I understand that linkdin is not considered reliable source but just use WP:COMMON sense.). After removing Tyler Bowyer out from the leadership section it was reverted back under WP:PRESERVE as the edit summary by @Llll5032. Other similar organizations article pages do not practice keeping former leadership positions in the article, I don't see any precedence to do so here. I also can not think any reason why keeping former employees would benefit an encyclopedia (Unless there was some notable reasoning, which I don't see in this situation). This seems to fall under WP:NOTDIRECTORY. There is no information included in his section(currently) that is relevant to this article. It talks about him becoming COO in 2017, his education, his association with Students for Trump and that he is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So why keep it in? Eruditess (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

When did he stop working for Turning Point USA? If a RS says he left, then the article should note his departure. Significant events in the group's history, which are included in his section, should not be erased from the article. Llll5032 (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

What part about his section is significant to Turning Point USA? Thats what I'm trying to figure out? Can you give me the specific part about his section that is significant to Turning Point USA? Also as far as @Springee's primary TPUSA link. I dont see where it says he is COO of TPUSA still (In Springee's defense I think that the wording is confusing on that link). If you do WP:OR you can go to his linkd'in profile as I mentioned. You can see he stopped working for TPUSA in June of 2022. He started as COO of TPAction in July of 2022.......He went from one job to the other. We have to use WP:COMMON. Also go google his twitter, in his twitter profile is says he is the COO of TPAction, not TPUSA. The WaPo article RS specifically states that he is the COO of Turning Point Action:

"Fournier indicated that he wanted the identification with Trump to remain explicit and worried that the revenue plan proposed by Bowyer, the chief operating officer of Turning Point Action, the political arm of Turning Point USA, would leave too little money for candidates." 

Eruditess (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I just did some ORing and found this [30]. Per the TPUSA site he is the COO of both organizations. Springee (talk) 10:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

At Talk:Turning Point Action, editors appeared to agree that any notable occurrences of overlap should also be kept at this TPUSA article. One of two editors in the discussion even said that its article should be merged with this article. Llll5032 (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes @Llll5032, I wouldn't argue that notable occurrences of overlap should be kept in both articles. Which brings up the same question once again, can you please identify what part of the Tyler Bowyer section do you consider a "notable occurrence"? Keeping him labeled as the COO of TPUSA is false. WP:COMMON SENSE tells us that through Linkdin and a WP:GREL WaPo article verifies it.

It talks about him becoming COO in 2017, his education, his association with Students for Trump and that he is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So why keep it in?
— User:Eruditess

Eruditess (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The notable occurrences are occurrences described in detail by WP:GREL sources, per WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:PROPORTION. Does TPUSA still list him on its site? Llll5032 (talk) 02:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Just as a heads up, Turning Point Action was WP:SPLIT out awhile ago into its own article from this article. MaximusEditor (talk) 23:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

At Talk:Turning Point Action, editors agreed that "any notable occurrences of overlap" should also be kept at this TPUSA article. One of the two editors in the discussion suggested that there should not even be separate articles because the groups are so closely linked. Llll5032 (talk) 02:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Removing donor names off of the article

In the "Finances" section there is a list of donors, this is information is solely sourced from PR Watch* which is ran by the Center for Media and Democracy. Neither appear to be on the WP:RSP. Its sister organization SourceWatch is deemed as WP:GUNREL. It seems that it isn't common practice to have a directory of names of donors for non-profits on Wikipedia as it is not a directory. I think it breaches WP:BLP protections and the names should be removed. Eruditess (talk) 07:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

"Controversies" section

I WP:BOLDly merged the controversies section into the end of the History section, based on WP:STRUCTURE in the NPOV policy, which says: "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure." Similarly, the WP:CSECTION recommends that we should "avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies" and "best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section". Llll5032 (talk) 08:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I also added a Reception section for some episodes of commentary, generally by non-WP:GREL sources unconnected to the group, which had been in the Controversies section. Llll5032 (talk) 08:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I do think we need to get rid of the "controversies" section but it shouldn't be dumped in the "History section", similarly with other sections that were combined into sub-sections under History. "History" section is definitely not the right place. While I like the WP:CSECTION essay, it isn't official policy. I have no doubt we can easily find consensus for creating improvements in what to do with the "controversies" section. If you look through the edit logs, at one point EliteArcher88 cited WP:CSECTION for his edit in renaming the "Controversies" section to "Views" which is a more accurate terminology and adheres better to WP:STRUCTURE. I am going to revert this back but do want to respect WP:BRD/WP:CYCLE policy and discuss changes before we attempt to reformat the controversies section, which has sat for quite some time. Eruditess (talk) 03:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Eruditess, some of the edits you reverted were not related to merging the Controversies section. Did you mean to revert every edit? Llll5032 (talk) 04:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I object to restoring those changes. There were quite a lot of changes made I just want to discuss them. I liked the idea of a "receptions" section and categorizing some of the critiques of TPUSA into this section. But the "History" section is not the right place for that. Why don't we rename the "Controversies" section to "Views" then make a sub-section called reception?

I dont mind this edit (shortening an opinion; tagging for third-party source for WP:DUEWEIGHT).

I dont mind the change of "Internal dissention" to "Heal our Voice dissidents"

I strongly agree with the BSN tags/WP:NOTRS tags.

I like the idea of combining both the watchlists (professor + schoolboard) into one section in the body.

Don't agree with the MOS:SAID change.

Strongly disagree with (grouping "Political activities" section with "Activities" section) edit.

I'm indifferent about relocating the mission statement, It isn't WP:PROMOTIONAL so it best informs readers in the lead paragraph. It summarizes what their "self-stated" mission is, I don't know why so many editors see it as problematic when attributed. Many WP:PRIMARY WP:RS sources attribute it.'

The rest of the edits were not improvements or weren't relevant from these standpoints. Eruditess (talk) 01:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I am restoring the edits to which you did not object. We can continue to talk about the others. I am moving the mission statement from the history section to activities because it is not historical. There may be other DUE places to move a mission statement; for example, a paragraph comparing how TPUSA describes itself with how independent RS describe it. Llll5032 (talk) 03:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Eruditess, what is your opinion of these edits, which group the section about campus chapters with the section about campus activism under "Activities", and edit the sub-headings to be more specific? Llll5032 (talk) 03:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Llll5032, I think we should do a little reformatting. The Watchlists should not be under the "Activities" section. We should make a new Watchlist section, I believe it has enough weight. We should move the "involvement in student government elections" sub-section into/under the "controversies" section. Activism sub-section can stay, since that is also an activity. Also the "Activities" section should be hoisted up above the "Finance" section, maybe even above the leadership section. Eruditess (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I do not think that Controversies should be a separate section, so I would oppose moving any new sub-sections into it. Llll5032 (talk) 01:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Merge the two watchlist's sub sections into a new section titled "watchlists". Trim down the "professor watchlist" section as it has been WP:SPLIT out to its own article and doesnt need to have any superfluous information kept that isn't related specifically to TPUSA. According to WikiProject Conservatism Style Guide's format on organizations, sources of funding (aka "finances") should be near the bottom. Here is the Style Guide's layout format:

• Lead
• History
• Objectives
• Leadership or Organizational structure
• Membership
• Policies and positions or Ideology
• Programs
• Accomplishments
• Sources of funding -- can also be placed under Organizational structure
• See also
• References
• External links

Note:TPUSA has a "Leadership" section not a "Organizational structure" section.

I would say the "activities" section most similarly relates to Objectives section (Mission statement was recently moved there by another editor). Activities section also holds more WP:WEIGHT than the finance section so it absolutely should be placed above it regardless. MaximusEditor (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no controversies section in that suggested format. Would that mean merging the Controversies section in this article into History? Llll5032 (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

According to WP:CSECTION:

"best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section. For example, if a politician received significant criticism about their public image, create a section entitled "Public image" or "Public profile", and include all related information—positive and negative—within that section. If a book was heavily criticized, create a section in the book's article called "Reception", and include positive and negative material in that section."

-We have to come up with a better section name other than "controversies" perhaps as the cited CSECTION advises (simply replace the word "book" with "organization" in the quotation above) and label the section "reception". PragerU has done this and does not have a "controversies" section but rather a "reception" section. History section is not the place to relocate. MaximusEditor (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

As far as closest formatting section, I think the "controversies section" is just a collective section of medias critiques on their policies/positions or their programs, so somewhere around those areas. MaximusEditor (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree insofar as commentary by non-WP:GREL sources should be in a Reception section instead of controversies. But most of the Controversies sub-sections, including "Heal Our Voice" and the tax code matters, would not fit in a Reception section. In my opinion, parts of the Controversies section that are reliably sourced should be included in History or other standard sections in which they fit, proportionate to independent reliable sources per WP:BESTSOURCES. Llll5032 (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that not everything currently under "Controversies" section would fit under a "reception" section. I think we should change and expand the old "Controversies" section title to "Reception/Critique on Policies/Positions/Ideologies." I think that would house all the subsections fairly minus "Heal our Voice" & the tax code stuff.

As far as "Heal our voice" section, I'm going to completely remove that. It's single source WP:MREL Daily Beast article that doesn't pass WP:10YT. The only other mention I could find of "Heal our Voice" on google was just a reprint of the Daily Beast. The tax code sub-section could be grouped into "Finance" section. The "Covid-19 misinformation" sub-section is a critique on their Covid position/ideology, so it would fit under "Reception/Critique on Policies/Positions/Ideologies" section. MaximusEditor (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

We can't make a verbatim copy of the Wiki-project Conservatism guide to section layout for organizations. I do think we can make changes to get it quite close. Seems that consensus is to add a reception section. So let's go ahead and do that. I do like the idea of expanding this addition of a "Reception" section to a broader section title such as "Reception/Critique on Policies/Positions/Ideologies/Procedure."(Note* I added "Procedure" on the the end of the section title to accommodate the few entries about the interviews with former employees written by Jane Mayer) This should be able to house all of the content that is currently in there. Pop the tax stuff subsection into finances and I think we have a vastly improved article layout. Eruditess (talk) 01:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:STRUCTURE says that we must avoid an "apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other." Is "Reception/Critique on Policies/Positions/Ideologies/Procedure" only "Controversies" with a longer name? Llll5032 (talk) 03:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The History section currently ends in 2017 because many events recounted by independent sources are relegated to other sections. Did TPUSA's history end in 2017? Llll5032 (talk) 04:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Renaming the "Controversies" section to Reception/Critique on Policies/Positions/Ideologies & Procedure will adhere to the WP:STRUCTURE policy issues you raise. Reception/Critique on Policies/Positions/Ideologies & Procedure is a neutral and descriptive header title that does not insinuate or "deem" any content within controversial. The current header "Controversies" does have a certain biased "connotation". That is why we are discussing a change. Other than the current "Controversies" header, there is no presentation of material within this section that would influence a reader to conceive material within as false. There is no "apparent hierarchy of fact" so the WP:STRUCTURE policy argument falls flat once the section header is changed.

You keep Rehashing a motion to move things into the History section under the logic that we should remove material from a more concise/descriptive section and place it under a larger generic (History) Section. Under that same logic we should just have all sections be sub-sections under "History" since all published material/events are part of the history of a subject. History sections should include "historic" facts about the article subject (events of great importance) such as details about the formation and major milestones. Currently, as is the "History" section does (Minus the last paragraph discussing donors which we should move into finance/sources of funding section). Anything in the current "controversies" section was specifically placed there instead of "history" on purpose. Nothing covered in "controversies" identifies as "historical" information.

What part of the "controversies" section isolates itself into "ignoring" or "fighting" against each other? I can't find any occurrences of that. Eruditess (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

No separate section named "Reception/Critique on Policies/Positions/Ideologies/Procedure" is recommended by the Conservatism style guide; does any other guide on Wikipedia recommend one? Part of that proposed title, "Critique", is a synonym for "Criticism", which is disputed by WP:CSECTION even more than "Controversies". Llll5032 (talk) 02:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

This is what WP:CSECTION says about criticism (if we use the synonym "critique"):

"An article dedicated to negative criticism of a topic is usually discouraged" - As discussed previously "controversies" section is neutrally worded (minus the section title), so no issue there. Do you think there is any negative non-neutral criticism content currently in the controversies section? If so it should be promptly removed as it would violate WP:NPOV.

& also via CSECTION:

"In some situations the term "criticism" may be appropriate in an article or section title, for example, if there is a large body of critical material, and if independent secondary sources comment, analyze or discuss the critical material." - Which is exactly our use case so we are good to make proposed section title change edits.

So if the logic is that "critique" is a synonym for "criticism", by CSECTION policy we are all good to proceed.

Also side note*- "critique" has a more neutral connotation vs "criticism".

This is what Merriam Webster says (In a section labelled "Did you Know" on the definition page for "critique"):

"What’s the difference between criticism and critique? There’s some overlap in meaning, but they’re not the same in every situation. Criticism is most often used broadly to refer to the act of negatively criticizing someone or something (“I’m more interested in encouragement right now than criticism”) or a remark or comment that expresses disapproval (“She shared a minor criticism about the design”), while critique is a more formal word for a carefully expressed judgment, opinion, or evaluation of both the good and bad qualities of something—for example, books or movies. Thus, a critic can write a critique that may be full of criticism."

So the argument "critique" is a synonym for "criticism" falls flat in this situation. Eruditess (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Does any other group on Wikipedia have a section called "Reception/Critique on Policies/Positions/Ideologies/Procedure" like the one you want? Llll5032 (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Bottom Line in this case, changing the section heading name from "Controversies" to the proposed "Reception/Critique on Policies/Positions/Ideologies & Procedure" is a vast improvement because it will be a more accurate, descriptive, neutral header replacing a problematic biased header. So I'm making that change. Also will move "Finances" section down to stay more in line with the proposed section layout from WikiProject Conservatism Style Guide for organizations that was linked previously. As well as some other positive quality of life changes for the article. MaximusEditor (talk) 01:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I reverted the novel heading language "Reception/Critique on Policies/Positions/Ideologies & Procedure" per the Manual of Style introduction: "Editors should write articles using straightforward, succinct, easily understood language and structure articles with consistent, reader-friendly layouts and formatting". I oppose having a Controversies section, but renaming it to a long title that is inconsistent with other articles does not conform to the Wikipedia Manual of Style or to the WikiProject Conservatism Style Guide. Controversies content should be moved into other standard sections neutrally instead, per WP:STRUCTURE, "by folding debates into the narrative". Llll5032 (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Because only three of us have been in this conversation, some opinions or edits by other editors may be helpful for establishing some kind of consensus. Llll5032 (talk) 03:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

You oppose having a Controversies section. But you reverted an edit to change the heading to a neutral and accurate description of critique from the media. You want to move the criteria of Controversies into other standard sections. The initial source of your argument was WP:CSECTION, in which I quoted as saying:

According to WP:CSECTION:"best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section. For example, if a politician received significant criticism about their public image, create a section entitled "Public image" or "Public profile", and include all related information—positive and negative—within that section. If a book was heavily criticized, create a section in the book's article called "Reception", and include positive and negative material in that section."

So according to your initial logic/source of argument for change (CSECTION essay) it says to create a section. It also says to include positive and negative material in that section. You even quoted that last part in your opening paragraph for this talk page discussion (The part I underlined in the green talk page quote above). I can understand the proposed new header being long. Lets compromise and make it simply "Reception/Critique from media". It's short, neutral and precise/accurate. It also resolves your issue with being inconsistent with other articles, since "reception/critique" is quite a broad and common section amongst articles. It is an absolute improvement for the article as it would make it more neutral. MaximusEditor (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Why does this group need a section name that no other article on Wikipedia uses?

Instead, why not simply keep some opinionated commentary in a small Reception section, and move news and WP:GREL assessments into other standard sections to make the whole article more informative and neutral? That would satisfy WP:STRUCTURE ("Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative") and WP:IS ("Emphasizing the views of disinterested sources is necessary to achieve a neutral point of view in an article.") Llll5032 (talk) 04:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

There is no policy that restricts the creation of a unique section header. As pointed out, it seems like WP:CSECTION essay actually promotes the idea of creating a unique section title. If it is accurate and relevant why revert it? I like the original proposal of "Reception/Critique on Policies/Positions/Ideologies & Procedure". That is my first choice. I would agree to compromise to a more vague shortened header such as "Reception/Critique from media", or as Llll5032 mentioned maybe instead of "reception" we can use "assessment". While not as descript, I would agree that either is still an improvement to the article. If you just change the header to a neutral and accurate header, it would conform to WP:STRUCTURE because it would be naturally integrated into the narrative.

Via WP:STRUCTURE:

Pay attention to headers, footnotes, or other formatting elements that might unduly favor one point of view or one aspect of the subject, and watch out for structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints

If you are favoring the WP:STRUCTURE argument, changing the header to a neutral and accurate section title would actually help the reader fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints as well as avoid giving unduly favor to one point of view or one aspect of the subject. (As the header name "Controversies" having a negative connotation would do exactly that to uneducated readers). Eruditess (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Does any editor including @Eruditess object to me restoring some of the edits reversed in this revert, which may not have been intentional, and include some copy edits and renaming of section titles? I will not restore any disputed edits without consensus. Llll5032 (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

No, I think that's fine. Actually, I'm not completely opposed to a "Controversy" section anyway for a group that has been widely called "controversial" in reliable sources and has even been accused (again, in reliable sources) of recruiting members through its controversial actions. Black Kite (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I am re-adding some edits that got no specified objections and probably won't be controversial. Llll5032 (talk) 10:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I think these were a good addition. Thanks @Llll5032 Eruditess (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposed removal of "2021 United States Capitol attack" section

@Llll5032: you (in good faith) reverted an edit that removed [[WP:SYNTH]] content with the edit summary of:

"Rv section blanking. Cited RS make few distinctions between the groups, and there has never been a consensus to remove content when TPUSA is mentioned by the RS"

The only mention of TPUSA in all the sources cited is only attached to the title of Charlie Kirk as "the leader of Turning Point USA". Thats it.

There is consensus to put content that is exclusive attributed to TPAction onto their own article page. Inclusion of TPAction content on this article is only for when there no discernable distinction. However this is not the case with my edit, as the sources make it very clear that it was explicitly TPAction who were involved with Jan 6th.

The Daily Dot article even printed a correction at the bottom of the article stating they wrongfully labelled TPUSA as TPAction:

"Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly referred to Turning Point USA (TPUSA) instead of Turning Point Action (TPA)."

The sourcing also cites the deleted tweet form Charlie Kirk:

"The historic event will likely be one of the largest and most consequential in American history,” Kirk wrote. “The team at @TrumpStudents & Turning Point Action are honored to help make this happen, sending 80+ buses full of patriots to DC to fight for this president.”

There is distinction between TPUSA vs TPAction in all the RS and there is no single use case of any sources saying TPUSA was involved with anything during Jan 6th. Doing so is breaching [[WP:SYNTH]]. Please revert your revert. Eruditess (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Eruditess, the edit I reverted was your removal of longstanding content which has been present in this article since January 2021. Secondary sources you deleted all mention Turning Point USA, so they should stay. In 2020, the year before the content was added, a new article had been created for Turning Point Action ("the political advocacy arm of the 501(c)(3) Turning Point USA, both founded by Charlie Kirk"). Creating a separate article for Turning Point Action was questioned because of the close connections between the groups,[1][2] but the consensus position since 2020 appears to be that when RS mention both groups, the information is included in both articles. Llll5032 (talk) 20:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I edited the heading above per WP:TALKHEADPOV. Llll5032 (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The three cited secondary sources all describe the connection between TPUSA and Turning Point Action, so I added the context. Llll5032 (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

You adding context cements how inappropriate this content is on this page. Citing the connection between TPUSA & TPAction doesn't make this content relevant to the TPUSA article in this situation. It is only long standing material because it was most likely added into the article before the Daily Dot issued a correction for misleading readers into thinking TPUSA had any connection with sending busses to D.C. on Jan 6th. Trying to use the slight mention in the cited sources of Charlie Kirk being the leader of TPUSA, or the use of TPAction being the "political advocacy arm" to TPUSA simply is not enough weight to warrant inclusion into this article. TPAction has been split out to its own article. Please stop ignoring that Turning Point Action Wikipedia page exists. The split was to move exclusive content of TPAction over to its own page. All cited sources in the Jan 6th capital attack section are exclusive to TPAction. Eruditess (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Are you actually seriously claiming that TPUSA and TPAction are so unrelated that content should not be shared across the two articles where relevant? Because that would appear to be delusional (and the sources agree). Black Kite (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that when TPUSA and TPACTION are both involved in a singular incident covered in RS , we should include it in this (TPUSA) article.  But that definitely is not the case here.  At no point in any RS cited is there mention of TPUSA being involved with the buses sent on Jan 6th.  Believing that TPUSA was in any way involved is delusional; it never happened and therefore putting that in the TPUSA article is a tremendous disservice to Wikipedia and it’s readers because it simply is not accurate or true.  You can’t associate every comment that Charlie Kirk says with TPUSA (because he is the founder of TPUSA) in the same way that editors cannot add every comment that Elon Musk makes to the SpaceX, Tesla, and X (formerly Twitter) Wiki-pages.  It is inappropriate, illogical, and unprofessional to do so.  Wikipedia needs to respect and honor the legal status of an organization and not intentionally blur the lines by implying that said entities have committed illegal activities. As editors we are to report what the RS say, not interpret it to how we view events. I’m willing to absolutely leave it on this article if you can find one instance of RS saying that TPUSA sent the buses. But the fact of the matter is, you can’t.  Because it didn’t happen.  Turning Point Action sent the busses, explicitly, because that is what TPACTION, as an activist organization, does.  All the sources confirm that TPACTION was involved.  TPUSA can’t legally be involved with sending those buses as it would violate their 501(c)3 charter.  Two of the cited sources issued corrections for wrongfully identifying TPAction as TPUSA.  It was important that those outlets printed those corrections because identifying TPAction erroneously as TPUSA has massive repercussions. Differences between TPUSA & TPAction is recognized by Wikipedia because each group has it’s own Wiki page.  Wikipedia needs to respect that and not create an association out of thin air by associating TPUSA with sending the buses.  Finally, the consensus is that anything not related to both entities needs to be kept separate especially since Wikipedia recognizes that TPACTION and TPUSA are separate and distinct groups. Eruditess (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

As the cited Reuters article says, "Another sponsor of the Jan. 6 rally was Turning Point Action, the political action committee arm of Turning Point USA." [31] For more than two years this section has summarized WP:GREL sources that show the association, but now you are saying it is "an association out of thin air"? Llll5032 (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I added two more WP:GREL refs that include all the claims and associations with no synthesis. More appear to be available. Llll5032 (talk) 04:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I removed those two sources per WP:OVERCITE, because there were already four citations. I would also recommend removing the tweet. Politrukki (talk) 12:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Please reread my response.

"and not create an association out of thin air by associating TPUSA with sending the buses". emphasis on the "sending busses".

Nobody is contending that TPAction isn't the sister political action organization of Turning Point USA. Now consensus says that material that is explicit to TPAction needs to be solely on their article page. Your argument is that because multiple sources defined Charlie Kirk as the "leader of TPUSA", that is enough of an association to keep it on TPUSA's page even though the sources ALL say that it was TPAction who was involved with busing people to the capitol on Jan 6th. You are adding in sources that are in direct alignment of what I continually keep saying. That TPUSA can not participate in election/campaign, therefore they could not legally be involved in any facet with coordinating buses. Which is what the "2021 Capitol attack" section discusses.

Even the new sources you added clearly emphasize this point.

From The Guardian article that you added in:

"The group, which has non-profit charity status that bars political work, also has a political arm called Turning Point Action that can do election work."

Also the NBC article says:

"Turning Point Action participated in efforts to “Stop the Steal,” bussing in supporters to Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021, and funneling money to rally speakers, including former Fox News anchor Kimberly Guilfoyle, but did not organize or take part in the march to the Capitol that erupted in violence."

Seeing that the NBC article explicitly points out that TPAction did not organize or take part in any Capitol related violence (Which I will be adding in). The section heading needs to be changed to something more accurate (As inferring any "attack" on the Capitol on TPAction's behalf would be WP:SYNTH). Current section title (2021 United States Capitol attack) has no basis and needs to be changed to "2021 Capitol protest/Stop the Steal". The current section title is false/ WP:SYNTH. Eruditess (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The RS say that Turning Point Action is the political arm of Turning Point USA and sent the buses. If you decide to edit the section carefully and match the emphases of the best independent reliable sources per WP:STICKTOSOURCE instead of blanking RS, then you may get fewer arguments. Please be WP:CAREFUL about RS content. Please also respect that veteran editors have not agreed with some of your interpretations of Wikipedia policies and your view on when Turning Point Action is included. Your view is probably not the "consensus" if more editors are disputing it than agree. Llll5032 (talk) 02:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm quite aware and familiar with how WP:CONSENSUS works, but thank you for the good faith reminder. I have respected and complied with Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle fully and completely and only strive to improve any article I edit for accuracy. As per my previous comment, I understand and agree that we will not be removing the "2021 Capitol attack" section. However, information in the section as well as the title of the section is inaccurate according to the NBC article, which you (Llll5032) supplied in this discussion, so I'm going to say we can all agree its WP:GREL and it qualifies as WP:BESTSOURCES. Therefore I don't see any issue with citing information from it and giving it proper weight. Eruditess (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Good, we are in agreement that adding nuances and proportionate details from WP:GREL sources like NBC News is likely to improve the article. Llll5032 (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

As a member of esteemed club of "veteran editors", I would say that it was misleading to claim in our article that "Turning Point USA" was the one sending buses. Your September 28 edit partially fixed that.

Looking at the current version, as the section is almost exclusively about Turning Point Action, the content should be moved to TPA's article, where it would be more DUE than here. Politrukki (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I copied the section to TPA's page, using this revision. If there are relevant changes to this section, please export them to that page also. Politrukki (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Arizona State University incident

This is an article from Inside Higher Education.[32] Lots of sources available, so significant. Eg[33][34] [35][36] Doug Weller talk 08:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Your edit is much too similar to a previously challenged edit citing a "BLP problem". I think that reasoning has merit, because Boyles appears to be largely not public figure. Your revert did nothing to address the problem and I asked you to self-revert, but as you have failed to do so, I will remove the quote. I will let "e.g. why he hates America" to stand, but I am afraid leaving only that part might be misleading.

If you want to gain consensus for restoring the edit (or similar content), you should present evidence that the accusation is commonly repeated in reliable sources. If the accusation is to be included, our article should also very likely mention that there is no evidence for the accusation (see the source you cited). Politrukki (talk) 17:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Kyle Rittenhouse description

Considering that Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted, and deemed to have acted in self defence, describing him as "a young man who gained notoriety for murder charges in Kenosha" seems both misleading and defaming. It also seems like an attempt to confuse rather than enlight the reader regarding the motivation for the portrayal of Rittenhouse at the TPUSA event.

Particularly when media had portrayed Rittenhouse as a racist vigilante who shot innocent black people, while the evidence revealed during the trial was that he had been chased and attacked by the three men he shot, that they were all white, at least two of them convicted felons with a history of violence and mental health issues. The third was only shot when he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse. The background was that Kenosha police had abandoned parts of their city, and left it to the citizens to defend property from being stolen or destroyed by rioters. 2A02:1406:33:7DD8:1165:EB68:1DA:C837 (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The section should probably be removed. Looking at the sources we have NPR which doesn't mention TPUSA. The other sources are marginal to establish weight. Mentioning the charges without mentioning that he was acquitted is a BLP problem. Given the weak sources and BLP issue as well as the very limited value of the paragraph (why is this DUE? Are we trying to lead the reader to a conclusion? This isn't presented as supporting evidence for a larger picture item). Given all that I would say remove it. Springee (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Springee, Looking at the information presented I can abide the removal of the "YWLS" section where there is mention of Kyle Rittenhouse. I would add though that we should maybe keep that first sentence that describes the YWLS conference and maybe use it in some capacity in the "annual summits" section (above the said YWLS section), since it is a good descriptor for that particular event. MaximusEditor (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

It might be worth noting YWLS somewhere but is it a stand out meeting or just one of many? I certainly wouldn't oppose inclusion in general but the content we have here is not encyclopedic. Springee (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Even with the "acquittal" changes, I'm still thinking just removing Rittenhouse completely by wiping away the section as a whole and just adding in the summary of YWLS in "Annual Summits" section would improve the article the most. MaximusEditor (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Would that abide by WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:DUEWEIGHT under NPOV and WP:STICKTOSOURCE under NOR, which say that articles follow the emphases of the best independent sources available? Llll5032 (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Llll5032, your edit was a nice improvement. I still think the whole section could go since it doesn't seem like DUE content but you addressed the biggest issue. As for removing the whole section, the sources are marginal and their intent seems to be to highlight the comment about Rittenhouse (vs any other thing said at the conference). When I see coverage like that it suggests the authors are going for the click bait angle. Not surprising given how much media is driven by getting eyes on the page to sell adds. You can either try to win that game with good articles or you can win with click bait/outrage baiting. Yes, the material was covered but absent the click bait part, is there anything else worth covering. I agree with the idea of summarizing that the YWLS exists and what it's general topics are. However, when it comes to encyclopedic content, stuff that would pass the 10 year test, I don't see this as important. Anyway, with the recent edit I see less need to remove the whole thing but I would still support such a change. I don't see previous discussions establishing weight for inclusion. Springee (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Springee. Rittenhouse was also noted for being featured by Turning Point at America Fest in 2021, which may establish more WEIGHT for him being in this article. Llll5032 (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

The issue is that the sources are not strong enough to support keeping the information regarding Kyle Rittenhouse. The section is about the Young Womens Leadership Summit, not about Kyle Rittenhouse being acquitted of murder charges. Him making an appearance does not warrant additional sourcing to prove WP:WEIGHT if we are doing that we know it is WP:UNDUE. Let's just remove the Rittenhouse material as well as the YWLS section and just pop the singular sentence that describes YWLS into the "Annual summit" section. I'm in full support of this change. MaximusEditor (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Some WP:GREL sources have described Turning Point's featuring Rittenhouse at events, so that is probably WP:DUE even if the Young Women's Leadership Summit is not. Llll5032 (talk) 04:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The cited sources seem to fall under these issues:

NPR article - Doesnt mention Turning Point USA, only focuses on the aquittal.

Media Matters - this article uses language such as "One of the most cringeworthy moments of the conference" & "And it wouldn’t be a true right-wing event without the organizers selling the audience something." which is WP:IMPARTIAL & falls under WP:OPINION. (Not usable will remove)

Newsweek & Business Insider are not WP:GREL.

With these sourcing issues the Rittenhouse information is WP:UNDUE. MaximusEditor (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

MaximusEditor, I was referring to additional WP:GREL sources about Turning Point's featuring of Kyle Rittenhouse that are not yet used in this article. Llll5032 (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

After reading the 3 additional sources you have provided, I'm still finding it hard to validate inclusion. As Springee pointed out, Rittenhouse attending/speaking at the AmericaFest conference (The 3 new sources you provided all are exclusive to him being at Americafest not the YWLS summit) does not pass the 10 year test. Is the fact he got acquitted for murder charges notable? Yes absolutely, not on this article though. Is the fact he attended TPUSA events notable? Not really. ("Most of the comments during Monday’s discussion were made by other panelists" - via AP News article). These articles mention his attendance/some examples of good reception and then the rest of the articles written give a vast focus on his trial and acquittal.

The reasoning that media coverage mentioning his attendance is WP:DUE sets precedence to include any notable figure attending a TPUSA conference covered in RS. MaximusEditor (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

It would be fine to include Turning Point's inclusion of other figures whose appearances at its events have been described as throughly by RS as Rittenhouse's appearances were. That is what WP:DUEWEIGHT says we do. Llll5032 (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

What WP:DUEWEIGHT says is:"represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources".

Even using the cited best sourced/reliable articles you cited, all those articles give minimal weight to his appearance and then go into a much more lengthy detailed account of the acquittal.Springee & I agree the mention of just "an appearance" at a conference doesn't hold any significant encyclopedic merit or value or pass the 10 year test. "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful." --via WP:NOTEVERYTHING. The AP source even points out that "Most of the comments during Monday’s discussion were made by other panelists", highlighting how non-notable his appearance was. Rittenhouse's acquittal absolutely is notable, but doesn't hold relevance to this article.

With the outstanding issue of the Rittenhouse sources citing he made appearances exclusively at the Americafest conference, I'm still going to remove the YWLS section and add the minor description to the "annual summits" section as any information about Rittenhouse would need to fall under an Americafest section. MaximusEditor (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

So perhaps the most neutral compromise is to add a sentence about Rittenhouse at America Fest, summarizing the emphases of the better WP:GREL sources in that section, in place of the WP:MREL sources you removed about him at the YWLS conference. I added a sentence, with an additional WP:GREL source to confirm the WP:DUEWEIGHT. In my opinion, briefly mentioning Rittenhouse at YWLS might also be DUE even with MREL sources if such a mention is brief and factual. Regardless, the America Fest sources are of better quality, so they have the strongest case for inclusion, and because they all focus on Rittenhouse's appearance, per WP:STICKTOSOURCE it should be included. Llll5032 (talk) 06:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that Rittenhouse needs to be mentioned, especially not in this context. However, with the primary BLP concern addressed I'm less concerned about this issue. Springee (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The cited Business Insider article mentions Rittenhouse's acquittal, so that could be added in a few words. Llll5032 (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the NPR source was added to support the acquittal. I'm just not sure that any of this is due given the low quality sources that we are citing to begin with. Springee (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I added the acquittal from the cited RS while the other issues are considered. Llll5032 (talk) 07:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing in "Finance" section

An "additional citation needed" tag has been lingering on the end of the list of donors for the Finance section in hopes to add any "reliable" sources, I have looked further into the current cited sources and they do not hold up to Wikipedia standard for WP:BESTSOURCES. One issue with the current sourcing for donors is that 3/4 of the donors are cited by a site called PRWatch (Run by the CMD). It's sister site SourceWatch (The only site from CMD on the RSP) is classified as WP:GUNREL. PRWatch is not listed on the WP:RSP. It is not even listed anywhere on CMD's article specifically under it's online projects? If you search the RSP archive for any prior discussion regarding "PRWatch", one of the results (a discussion actually about sister-site "SourceWatch') pulls a statement by a woman named Lisa Graves who self discloses through her editor name that she works for CMD, she is the President of the Board of the Center for Media and Democracy, and stated the following in the discussion.

"that our (SourceWatch) articles are more like "blogs," which is not the case and in fact our PRWatch site is where our blogs are posted, not SourceWatch".

The intro to the list of donors on the TPUSA article says:

" According to the Center for Media and Democracy, donors include:"

This is misleading, it should be "According to PRWatch". PRWatch being a blog site fails WP:BestSources and it's cited sourcing should be removed along with the content.

The next issue with sourcing is from an article from the State-Journal Register, this particular cited article has a disclaimer at the top of the article for being an opinion piece. Once again failing WP:BESTSOURCES. This must be removed.

The last source cited in the group is from an archived site called "Conservative Transparency", when I tried to go to the live site I got a warning on my browser that it was an unsecure site, and that Conservative Transparency is run by something called The Bridge Project. When I went The Bridge Project site, I was also alerted the connection was unsecure, and found that the latest article they posted was in 2019. There was no information on who published the articles on their site. This is bogus and fails WP:BESTSOURCES.

I am going to modify the section by removing the donors names out of the list format and then adding any remaining reliably sourced donors (if any) in more of a paragraph format much like it is over on PragerU's article page. Eruditess (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

A non-opinion RS reported the Rauner contributions, so I re-added them. Also, I tagged the Uihlien contribution for a better source needed per your question about that source. Eruditess, perhaps you could ask RSN about PRWatch? Llll5032 (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the Rauner sourcing. We will give it some time to see if any editors provide a better source for Uihlien. As for the PRWatch cited sourcing, we still have more issues that are problematic. One of the main issues that was discussed over on PragerU's page a little bit ago (regarding the exact same issue) was that most editors felt a singularly sourced donation didn't warrant inclusion. Most of the editors involved in that discussion echoed: if a donor has multiple WP:RS articles outlining their donation then it is notable enough to keep in the article, that just mention of a donation alone doesn't merit inclusion in the article and doesn't pass WP:10YT. With the exception of founding donations as it is part of History, if a donor is only outlined from one source we should remove it. Most the PRWatch sources are for people who aren't notable enough to have articles/links. Let's keep any donors with multiple RS coverage and remove any that only are sourced from one source such as PRWatch. Eruditess (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Eruditess, are you referring to this discussion? If there was a consensus there, it appeared to be about using good WP:SECONDARY sources rather than primary sources, not the number. Llll5032 (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

These responses absolutely appear to specifically focus on the fact that the PragerU citations had been covered by multiple sources:

"It is relevant if enough RS say it is relevant, per WP:BESTSOURCES, WP:INDY, and WP:PROPORTION." --Llll5032

"It may be OK to say where the original funding came from but after it doesn't seem to really bring much to the article." --Springee

"These donors are specifically mentioned in general articles about PragerU, which means that multiple reliable sources consider them important enough to merit coverage." --dlthewave

The donors have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, making it WP:DUE for inclusion. --FormalDude

And I even comment myself on that discussion that this was what consensus looked like:

What I'm seeing from the responses are:

"A) If there is significant information covered in RS it should be included, and all sources right now in PragerU possess multiple RS to warrant inclusion.

-I agree, if multiple sources cover a donation, it could be deemed as notable." (Note the difference on TPUSA where all donations only have 1 citation which is not a WP:GREL source.)

Nobody was arguing for the inclusion of primary sourcing.

Bottom line, a blog site that is just posting findings from public IRS documents doesn't constitute inclusion, if that is the only citation that discusses those donations. If it were covered in other/multiple WP:RS than yes it would indicate that it is notable. But that simply is not the case here and it still stands that the singular sourced citations from blog sites should be removed. Eruditess (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

You tagged Springee and me, but not @FormalDude or @Dlthewave in quotations from them, so I am tagging them for this discussion. Llll5032 (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

We have no responses from any of the pinged editors, the logic from the editor's response still remains the same and unchanged (I don't know what they could have said to chance their stance besides a full contradiction), all the quoted editors in my above post placed emphasis on the fact that if enough RS cover a donation, then it was relevant enough for inclusion. So for the single sourced donations from "PRWatch" need to be removed. Eruditess (talk) 03:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Have you considered asking RSN about PRWatch, or looking for additional sources? Llll5032 (talk) 09:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

After doing another in-depth dive of additional reliable sources covering TPUSA donations, I have found the following:

This Guardian article does mention Donor's Trust & Bradley Foundation donating to Turning Point USA. (I will note that the Guardian is WP:GREL, however there is a note on the RSP that some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics). The Guardian source also does not disclose an amount for the Bradley foundation donation, it just generalizes that they did donate a large sum .

There are no other sources (minus a clone PRWatch article by the same author (Alex Kotch) and published on the same exact date as the PRWatch article under the same CMD Umbrella) that discuss any of the other mentioned donors.

It is not necessary for an RSN discussion for PRWatch as we already have Lisa Graves (the President of the Board of the Center for Media and Democracy) disclose on a separate RSN for Sourcewatch that PRWatch is their (CMD's) blogsite. As well the main point being made is that reliability is not the issue here, as we know the issue is the lack of RS covering specific donations.(Precedence set on PragerU's donations talk page discussion).

Since there are no other articles discussing the remaining donors, and the articles that we have found are not very strong (Guardian being problematic within the political sphere as well as not listing an amount for Bradley Foundation, PRWatch being a blog site and unusable). I think a good compromise would be to keep Ed Uihlein Family Foundation, Donor's trust and the Bradley foundation in the article as donors. Remove the rest and take it out of a bulleted list format and make it in a paragraph like on PragerU. Eruditess (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the Guardian article and for noting the WP:GREL rating. I added its figure, in brief, for a contribution from Donors Trust. It could be attributed if there is a neutrality concern. Would any other editors prefer adding more sources to confirm DUEWEIGHT in this section, or is there some consensus that PRWatch is adequate for the figures, which have been in the article since 2020? Llll5032 (talk) 07:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I like the stated compromise above. The list of donors doesn't add any value to the article without context. Anybody seeking donor information can just go access the public records (Which is what PRWatch does). Having a site like PRWatch just regurgitate information from the IRS public filings doesn't indicate notability. Maybe if a donor made such a significant amount that it was covered in multiple "reliable" sources (Which seems to be the basis of this discussion). Or if a donation was a historic benchmark it would be notable for inclusion. Please remove the single sourced donations. MaximusEditor (talk) 06:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

"Israel-Hamas war" section is questionable

The Israel Hamas section does not contain any actual information about TPUSA's official views on the Israel-Hamas war. It does speak about how of it's 254 volunteer ambassadors, some (article was very vague on who or how many) are split on the controversial Israel-Hamas war topic. I don't know why this information was included? I think the whole section is irrelevant and should be deleted. Since an accurate title for the section would be more along the lines of "TPUSA ambassadors split on Israel-Hamas war". I added a "better source needed" template because even if it is attributed to Semafor, it is not a strong enough source to warrant inclusion and if no better sources can be found ( A search about TPUSA and anti-semetism brings up mainly aritlces that discuss the orginization's termination of Morgan Ariel for being antisemitic and no other coverage about the views on TPUSA's ambassadors.) I will delete the section. MaximusEditor (talk) 06:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Is Semafor not a strong source? Perhaps it could be asked at WP:RSN. Llll5032 (talk) 07:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

If the group doesn't have an official position on the topic and if the sources covering it are weak in terms of weight then I would say remove it. Springee (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think non-profit organizations legally could take a position on issues such as Israel Hamas war? According to WP:GREL Politifact source : " "It (TPUSA) does have this checkered or spotted history with regard to individual members or local leaders in Turning Point USA making racist or otherwise problematic comments… but it’s not the ideology of the group itself." - In regard to being a racist organization. This Poltifact article directly states that TPUSA does not share the views of its individual members. This negates the Semafor article having relevance to this article subject. Having "ambassadors" clash over a divisive topic does not merit inclusion. Semafor is not a strong source. The whole section is not relevant, take it out. Eruditess (talk) 08:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Why not ask WP:RSN if Semafor is a RS? Llll5032 (talk) 08:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

The reason we aren't going to ask the RSN is because no matter the outcome of Semafor's reliability, it wouldn't be relevant. Just as opinions from volunteer TPUSA ambassadors are not relevant to this article. This is a case of WP:ONUS - "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."

The consensus of this discussion has determined that the opinions of TPUSA ambassadors does not improve the article, as Politifact article linked above has proven, TPUSA does not share the views of its individual members (in this case Ambassadors). Will remove material promptly. MaximusEditor (talk) 23:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)