Talk:Turning Point USA/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Copyright violations

The "About the Founder" and parts of "In the Media" appear to be copied from the copyrighted page:

http://turningpointusa.net/boardofdirectors/

--NapoliRoma (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Controversy over controversial controversy claim in "Controversy" section

This edit removed a large section of well sourced text reading: "First appearing on November 21st, 2016, Turning Point USA also operates a website called Professor Watchlist in order to 'expose and document college professors who discriminate against conservative students, promote anti-American values, and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom.' The website lists academics who “promote anti-American, leftwing propaganda in the classroom” according to a blog post by Charlie Kirk. Tips are accepted from the public, and over 200 professors are currently listed. The website has been criticized as racist and pro-fascist, using surveillance type propaganda to manipulate ideas of truth, equality, and freedom."

The removal was explained as "I removed content that contained false information and also no indication that anything was controversial about the idea discussed."

The editor is not clear about what they feel is "false information" and everything is quite well sourced. The section did not say anything was controversial about the "idea". Rather, it said there has been controversy: Turning Point (obviously) thinks the project is a good idea, others -- as sourced -- have criticized it. That is the essence of controversy. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Proposed merge with Hypeline News

No signs of notability of Hypeline News independent of Turning Point USA, and half of the content in Hypeline News is a quotation from their website and doesn't really belong anyway. So, a merger would be essentially an acknowledgement at Turning Point USA that Hypeline News exists. Largoplazo (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Move. Zero notability beyond the affiliation with Turning Point USA. JSFarman (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
• I decided to be bold and I just turned Hypeline into a redirect to TPUSA. JSFarman (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Clean-Up

I've gone ahead and cleaned up the article. The basic changes include:

• I removed a lot of redundant facts stated in the article's lead that are repeated in the body
• Removed a lot of excessive facts about Charlie Kirk that are already on his page (we don't need two Charlie Kirk articles)
• Restructured the controversy section and condensed the sections concerning affiliated groups and individuals (we don't need each sentence to have its own break in-between).
• Removed the "In the Media" section, because quite frankly, this section - while well-sourced - boiled down to just a collection of interviews with Charlie Kirk; again, extremely redundant and somewhat self-promoting (better fit for his article).
• As per the above section detailing how the article for Hypeline News has since been deleted and turned into a redirect for TPUSA, there's really no reason for the bit in the lead about Hypeline since it's just another project of TPUSA that's not nearly as noteworthy as, say, the Professor Watchlist. There's also the fact that the one and only source for the bit about Hypeline was from Hypeline itself - once more, very self-promoting.

104.52.53.152 (talk) 01:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

"has been described as an alt-right organization" in Lead

The two reliable sources cited, New Republic and The Daily Dot, do not describe the organization as alt-right. The only sources cited that support that claim are "SocialistWorker.org" and "AcadaDemeBlog", neither of which are WP:RS. This line is not supported and should be removed from the Lead. Marquis de Faux (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Allegations of Racism in Lede

The racism allegations against Turning Point USA do not belong in the lede of this article because they are not yet reliably substantiated nor have they been shown to have impacted the organization to a degree meriting the info's position at the top of the article. The existing source for these allegations cite (1) a recently fired employee and (2) an unnamed source. There can be a section in the article about the issue, but it is neither reliable nor impactful enough to rise to the lede. It's inclusion right now is flippant to the seriousness of the allegation and disingenuous about its veracity.

To include in lede, one of these things (or something like it) should first occur: (a) accusations are filed in a non-frivilous civil suit; (b) Turning Point confirms the allegations; or (c) the allegations have a significant and lasting effect on the organization.

(the article cited: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/a-conservative-nonprofit-that-seeks-to-transform-college-campuses-faces-allegations-of-racial-bias-and-illegal-campaign-activity) Lukacris (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

That isn't a standard adopted by the community as far as I know. The relevant guideline is WP:LEAD--which only says that the lead should summarize the subject's most important points. An unsubstantiated, unimpactful allegation can certainly be one of its most important points, especially if it received widespread media attention. In this case, the story was covered not only by The New Yorker but also by other reliable sources such as The Daily Beast, The Hill, and Newsweek. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman I simply don't understand your point that something can be "one of its most important points" if it is also unimpactful and unsubstantiated. We should be mindful of the political nature of this organization that tends to motivate a degree of news coverage out of whack with what's really there. Also, right-wing groups get smeared as racist on a fairly regular basis. I bring this up because the number of publications that ran with this story does not necessary bear on the accusations' veracity or impact. More news stories with the same suspect sourcing don't help. Now, if these poorly-sourced news stories have a palpable effect on the organization rising to the level of being "one of [turning point's] most important points," then it should go in the lede-- this is not the case. If the accusations were themselves more reliable, that might also qualify it for lede. Lukacris (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

If I publicly accused Meryl Streep of animal sacrifice and media outlets ran with my accusations (without reliable corroboration), then it wouldn't belong in her lede unless it had some meaningful impact on her biography. Lukacris (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The standards for inclusion here are WP:V, WP:WEIGHT and WP:LEDE.

If someone files a civil suit -- whether or not you or anyone else judges it to be "non-frivolous" -- it may or may not merit inclusion here. It depends on coverage by reliable sources.

It's rather ludicrous to expect an organization to say, "Yes, we are racist." Heck, white supremacist organizations playing word games to say they aren't white supremacist/racist/etc. are twelve for ten cents. (That some organizations are caught with their pants down far enough to spout b.s. pseudo-apologies for "actions by some of (their) members which may have been seen as inappropriate" not withstanding.)

What constitutes a "significant and lasting effect" for a tiny group that's all of five years old? Are we waiting for a report saying they've had trouble recruiting over the past decade because of an extensive and on-going series of allegations?

Let's try an absurdly obvious case that would fail your criteria but obviously be a defining characteristic of a group: An organization forms and, within 3 months of forming, every source discussing the group says unequivocally in the first sentence that they are a racist organization. No lawsuit, no self-identification, no "significant, lasting impact". In that case, as in EVERY case, it's a matter of sources and weight.

At the moment, we have high quality sources reporting the charge. I'd say the section is appropriate. For the lede, summary of a section is appropriate. Heck, at present it's a rather small part of the lede, at the very end. Keep in mind that that short summary is for the longest section of the article (other than the catch-all "Other controversies"). - SummerPhD^SummerPhD 01:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)'

My primary disagreement with SummerPhD is that these sources are not high quality. The sources of the articles are a recently-fired employee and an unnamed source-- The sources are perfectly adequate to show that the allegations exist and what they are, but not whether they are reliable, damning, legally problematic, or at all important. No sane person takes at face value public criticisms of an organization by a person it just fired. Right wing political groups are publicly maligned as racist so often that it's practically white noise, so the existence of the allegation itself does not ipso facto prove its significance. Including the allegation in the lede is not a neutral choice; its inclusion implies a judgment that the allegation is significant.

Re: admission by the organization: It's not ludicrous to hold out for the organization confirming that some of the events from the accusation did occur (and probably that the particular person was fired). I bring up the non-frivilous civil suit as a possible standard because there are sanctions that exist in court but not in the press about the veracity of factual allegations (btw an actual judge judges whether a suit is frivolous (i.e., defendant succeeds on a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss)), and because an employment discrimination lawsuit will almost-certainly follow if there is truth or provability to the allegations.

I know I'm repeating myself, but this distinction is important: Sources reliably supporting the allegation's existence are not adequate. We need a source showing that the allegations are significant. Significance cannot be implied merely by the number of outlets who covered the story because of the political context here. Lukacris (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The allegation is significant. That determination was made by editors at multiple reputable news outlets (The New Yorker, The Daily Beast, The Hill, Newsweek). Yes, significance can be implied by the number of outlets that covered it. That's how it's regularly done here. These outlets decided that the allegations were credible and newsworthy enough to publish and promote. There's nothing unique about these allegations or the sources that exempts them from our usual practices. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The sources are not a recently-fired employee and an unnamed source. The sources are The New Yorker, The Daily Beast, The Hill and Newsweek. Those are high quality, reliable sources. The issue is not whether the accusations are "reliable, damning, legally problematic, or at all important". The issues are whether the material in the section is verifiable, it's weight and whether we summarize it in the lede. The existence of the allegations is verifiable (cited to several reliable sources). The strength of those sources supported the creation of the section. The existence and size of that section has us summarizing it in the lede. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with Summer that the lead should include material proportionally to the body. But I do agree with the broader point. The content is verifiable because it is supported by reliable sources. And once you cross the verifiability threshold, questions of weight/lead generally have nothing to do with the strength of the sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

SummerPhDv2.0, I think we're talking past each other on the sourcing issue. Those articles reliably attest to the existence of the allegations and are adequate sources for that fact. But the articles' sources are a recently-fired employee and a John Doe. For that reason, the articles do not adequately support the fact of the accusation's veracity. The remaining question then is whether the existence of the accusation is significant enough for the lede. It's been written about by several publishers, but I'm not convinced that one-round of cursory press coverage is sufficient absent some palpable effect on the organization or buttressing of the allegations' veracity (this point is debatable). Lukacris (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Placing the allegations in the lead section does not imply anything about their veracity. We place unproven allegations in the lead sections of our articles all the time. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree, Dr. Fleischman. However, it does imply significance, significance comes from veracity or from effect, and I see neither here. At any rate, I think I've made my point already and am content to table the issue. Lukacris (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

No, that's not generally how it's done here. I mean, you're entitled to that reasonable position, and there's nothing in our community standards forbidding it, but it probably wouldn't garner a consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• Participants in this discussion may be interested in a discussion taking place at Talk:Alt-right#Proper attention to the term's unsteady breadth. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Lukacris: DO NOT REMOVE OTHER EDITORS' COMMENTS FROM TALK PAGES There are a very limited number of circumstances in which this is allowed (see WP:TPO) and removing a neutral pointer to another related discussion is not one of them. If you do it again, I will bring your action to the attention of an administrator. I hope that is clear. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Downfall

Jamesharrison2014 and Michael Heil, I would like to understand how you two think that we're acting in compliance with our community standards by edit warring to add content that describes Turning Point USA's "downfall" and cites such as Facebook, Breitbart, libertyhangout.org. There are many other things wrong with this content but that's a start. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I believe that the information removed is important to the current state of Turning Point USA. For that section to be removed entirely removed is getting rid of important controversy within the organization that is indeed fact. To remove it would be trying to shape the Turning Point USA page not with facts but with a selection of facts. All information that has no opinion stated should be allowed on Wikipedia. Perhaps not all of the content should be in but, not all of it needs to be removed. Also, Libertyhangout.org is a primary source when talking about Kaitlin Bennett's connection to her statements in resignation. Michael Heil (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok well if that's what you're concerned about, did you notice that the Tomi Lahren controversy was already covered in article, and in more depth? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you familiar with our policy saying that we are not permitted to interpret primary sources? (Such as pointing to a Facebook post and describing it has "singling someone out?") --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

LibertyHangout is the direct resignation letter though and not a social media platform. I was not interpreting the source but directly stating and quoting it. I will admit I didn't notice the Tomi Lahren controversy was in there twice. Perhaps I will just add it to other controversies because it is still important to be there. Would there be any issue with that?Michael Heil (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but you cannot use a self-published primary source as reference for criticising an organisation. We have no way of knowing if what is said is in any way reliable, accurate or notable. Wait until it's covered, if ever, by a reliable third party. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Here are your 3rd party sources:

http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/12/shole-organization-tpusa-chapter-disbands-citing-awful-leadership/ (University paper) http://www.kentwired.com/latest_updates/article_150da234-1053-11e8-a675-0b661d4f9580.html https://www.rawstory.com/feed-items/turning-point-usa-chapter-at-kent-state-disbands-over-diaper-debacle/ http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/10/19/turning-point-usa-activists-wear-diapers-to-protest-safe-space-culture/ https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/student-activist-quits-turning-points-usa-shithole-organization Fine lets not inturpret them. Lets rewrite the facts. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

They're not my sources. It's you adding the content, so your responsibility to provide them. At a quick look, I'd suggest that the talkingpointsmemo.com appears to be the most appropriate. Why not use that? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd be happy to but everytime I add them I get reverted. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Those aren't reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Caller is a nationally syndicated source. It is even recognized on Wikipedia along with Talking Points Memo. Where does it say we can't use nationally recognized media? Dr. Fleischman These same sources are already used in the article including Breitbart, The Daily Caller, and school newspapers. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

It is a POV site, and does not fulfill the requirements of WP:RS, which you should read. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Yup. The TPM article and the story itself are pretty gossipy, but it seems like this could warrant a sentence or two. Nothing at all in that source suggests anything about a "downfall", however. That's a leap, at best. Grayfell (talk) 05:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Whoever is editing from Riverside, NJ should stop immediately as there is currently no consensus here to add the Kent State content. Which, I might add, is also already covered in the "Student activities" section. Sigh. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Here are the contributions of this editor.[1] Doug Weller talk 20:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppeting/Meatpuppetry/COI concerns

Wrong venue. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The relationship here between User:Jamesharrison2014 and User:Michael Heil here looks suspect. What is additionally concerning is User:Michael Heil's stated connection to Kent University, while there is a publicized conflict between students at Kent and Turning Point. Makes this a potential WP:COI issue. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC) Plot Spoiler: This page is for discussing improvements to the article. Accusations of inappropriate editing here without substantial proof may be seen as a personal attack. I do not see any evidence to suggest sock or meat puppetry here and the COI question seems a bit of a stretch. (Full disclosure: I coauthored a paper several years ago with an ABD then associated with Kent State. She has since earned her degree and we correspond occasionally.) If you have puppetry concerns, please take them to WP:SPI. If you have COI concerns, please raise the issue on the user's talk page and, if needed, at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. - SummerPhDv2.0 23:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC) A couple things: As stated above this is not the place for this. 2. Feel free to look at edit history just because we agree on one issue does not make us sockpuppets. 3. You are required to sign your posts so I recommend doing that in the future. Should you chose to report this you might want to have some proof as they require clear evidence (which you will not have as we are not the same person) in sockpuppet investigations. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Also, I do agree since he goes to Kent State that it is a clear COI and he should not be editing that part of the article. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to remove section

While going through sources in the section titled "Potentially illegal campaign activity," only a few sources seemed to be about this subject, and were just small articles stating that they were involved in illegal campaign activity with no proof. Other sources had alleged "proof" I propose to remove this section. -RSquier (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Are the sources reliable? If so the content should probably remain. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree with RSquier. No mainstream media sources cited. The best source is the New Yorker and the that is one source opinion. There is no evidence in any articles proving the claim. To allege illegal activity it should be proven by multiple REPUTABLE sources not one allegation. Would recommend deleting this section without any other sourcing. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 05:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Not just the New Yorker. Also The Chronicle of Higher Education. Neither of those are small articles. Obviously RSquier would want to remove any negative information and has a serious conflict of interest which needs to be addressed. I note that he hasn't posted since he was told about this on his talk page. I see no reason to remove this section. Doug Weller talk 13:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Doug. The New Yorker and the Chronicle are not only mainstream but extremely reliable. The Chronicle is far and away the most established and widely circulated newspaper focusing on higher ed. Reliable sources are not required to share "proof" with their readers. There is no requirement to provide more than one reliable source for any given content. I do have concerns about the neutrality of some of the language (which seems rather alarmist and misleading) but that's a separate issue. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Haha, what a farce. I'm very tempted to start a sockpuppet investigation here. Carl Fredrik ^talk 23:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

No, you definitely don't have to worry about that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

All due respect, you can't just open a sockpuppet investigation because someone agrees with someone. You disagree with me and I didn't accuse you of being a sockpuppet. Feel free to run a check user on me. We are not the same person. Also, these are accusations the language is not neutral. For instance, "Turning Point USA has been secretly involved in influencing student government elections at a number of colleges and universities." This has no source and it is stated as a fact. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been busy with other things such as school. I initially did not see any reputable sources in the section,I misread the article from "The Chronicle" as it only states "Evidence of a conservative group’s influence in student-government campaigns can be found on campuses from coast to coast." to non subscribers, and I did not realize it was a subscription site, so I believed the source to be invalid (I will give the benefit of the doubt that it has more valid info than what I saw. The article from the New Yorker appeared to be merely speculative, and upon further reading, has more merit than I initially noticed. I would propose that the section would state that they have been accused of the illegal campaign activity, as for as far as I can tell, no indictment has been made against TPUSA. Again, I would not remove it, and I apologize, especially to Dr. Fleischman, for posting the proposal, then waiting this long to reply again. RSquier (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Full disclosure, I heard allegations on my campus about TPUSA influencing Student Givernment elections, however, rumors are not a reliable source, however the ones in the article upon my further review seem to have more substance. My only concern is that it paints the allegations as true, which even in the New Yorker article, were speculative. I do not know what the chronicle had to say, as I do not have full access to that article.RSquier (talk) 03:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Cite check tag

In going through a number of sources for this article, I noticed that perhaps half of the content I checked failed verification, either completely or partially. That's why I added the cite check tag. Once the article receives a thorough combing over then we can remove the tag. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Would you please elaborate as to what facts need to be cited/have more reliable sources? I could not find any red tags on the article (maybe I missed them). Thank you for helping this page remain reliable RSquier (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by red tags, but what I mean is that every source needs to be checked to make sure that it verifies the content it purports to verify. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry DrFleischman, I was mistaken, ignore the above comment. I found some indicators in the article such as "dead link" and "by whom" in which I fixed. Under "Racism allegations"I Added 2 citations for criticism where "by whom" indicator was present, removed indicator. Under "Denial of recognition on campus" I Replaced noted dead link with an active one, removed indicator. If I was not supposed to remove those indicators, I apologize. There are other flagged sources that I currently do not have the time to fix. Is this what you meant by failed verification, or can you please indicate which sources in particular are not properly verifying the information please? Thanks. --RSquier (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Your help is appreciated, however:

• Editors with conflicts of interest shouldn't edit conflicted articles, even if they're not being paid.
• {{dead}} and {{by whom}} tags are separate issues from the {{cite check}} tag.
• Breitbart is not a reliable source.

What I mean by the cite check tag is that literally every source needs to be checked. When I reviewed portions of the article early last month, I discovered that much of the content wasn't supported by the cited sources. The source would say one thing, but our article would say another. Examples of my fixes are here, here, here. Another issue was that a whole bunch of sources didn't meet our reliability standard, so I removed them. However it was a tedious process. Someone needs to go through every single sentence and make sure the source it cites to (i) is reliable and (ii) says what our content says. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand now, I thought you meant some links were dead or unreliable. Now that I know you removed unreliable links, this is more understandable. Thanks. RSquier (talk) 03:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I added sources, and fixed some dead links. Everything appears to me as if it is properly cited after these revisions. I did not remove any tags or flags (except when I replaced a dead link), so they are still there. I know a WP:COI has been tacked onto my talk page for this page, and as shown below, as well in my talk page, I addressed these. I still would be hesitant to remove any tags, flags, or banners so I respectfully ask that the article is reviewed again, by a less biased person than me (face it, we all have our biases), and remove the cite check tag. Please let me know once this has been done, and if it needs more sources. RSquier (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit to Kirk section

Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "Rm infobox -- not a bio article; out of place here. Rm self-citation & unneeded section break. Reduce intricate detail about Boy Scouts". In short, the infobox and some of self-cited, self-congratulatory content is undue here. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

You messed up some of the inline citations FYI. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean the Atlantic ref? It was like this before my edit; pls see prior version. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: no, I'm referring to the fact that the first two paras of the background section no longer have inline citations. Respectfully yours Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I've not edited the Background section previously, but looking at it now, I see that it was largely repeating the content that's now in Kirk's section. I combined the first two sections (Background and Student activities) into a single one with this edit. This took care of the lack of inline refs. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree this is not a bio article the boy scouts stuff is irrelevant also the fact he is a Republican is too. A non-profit and even this article says non-partisan. Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

501(c)(3) Section

Two problems with this section: First, the title is terrible. Second, I'm not sure there's any merit to the claim that Turning Point USA overstepped into impropriety with respect to their 501(c)(3) status (The sourced article is behind a paywall). 501(c)(3) status prohibits non-profits from working to support/oppose a "candidate for elective public office." Unless I'm mistaken, a student government election does not constitute "elective public office" because the student body—not the public—is the electorate. If the source article argues from a mistaken premise, it's not a reliable source. Lukacris (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I think I solved the first problem. On the second, I agree that statement is dubious and is likely a misrepresentation of the source. (The Chronicle is generally a very reliable outlet.) It's also weasely--whose questions? We need to track down that source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Or we could just remove it altogether—It's not obvious to me that this section is justified at all. Lukacris (talk) 04:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The section (now 2 sections) is based on reliable sources. Why wouldn't we cover them? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The Chronicle article says " Tax experts told The Chronicle that Turning Point’s connection to the event may have violated federal rules prohibiting 501(c)(3) charities from engaging in political activity — the event had a pro-Trump tone, and a Turning Point staff member promised on Facebook that "expenses will be covered" for students who attended. Mr. Kirk responded by saying Turning Point funds were not used to transport students to the town hall. Sally Wagenmaker, a lawyer who represents Turning Point, said, "This was a town-hall forum put on by a news outlet, not a political campaign event."" Doug Weller talk 10:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Doug! This definitely supports the inclusion of the material, though it could stick closer to the source. As to Turning Point's response, the lawyer's comment was hogwash and unworthy of inclusion. (News outlet? Give me a break.) But we should certainly say that TP has disputed the tax experts' charge. I will edit the article accordingly. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

One more thing, Doug before we can conform that sentence to the Chronicle source. What does the source say is the "connection the event?" What event and what connection? This is critical because our article says it was TP's general involvement "at a number of colleges and universities" that led to the tax experts' change, when from the bit you excerpted it was clearly about some specific involvement in a specific event. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The first part of that paragraph is "In mid-October, Mr. Kirk appeared at Fox News’s Millennial Town Hall, in Las Vegas, seated next to Donald Trump Jr. and Lara and Eric Trump". Doug Weller talk 19:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok so the tax exemption stuff had nothing to do with influencing student government elections? It seems like the paragraph needs a full re-write. Are you willing to do it yourself since you have access to the source? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I got my hands on the source and will work on this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I fixed the problem. The source is a massive expose with lots more usable content than what's currently included. It'll take me some time to get through it all. Top of my Wikipedia todo list. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

deletion of edits

Several edits made by me were deleted by DrFleischman 18:21, 12 April 2018 with the edit summary
"undid 4 good faith revs by BoogaLouie per WP:UNDUE, WP:QUOTEFARM - we're writing an encyclopedia article, not a compendium of random quotes - please summarize in a way that demonstrates the material's significance)"

• If someone has been accused of saying something they didn't say is it including "random quotes" to include what they were accused of saying?
  In December 2016, Turning Point falsely quoted Nancy Pelosi in a facebook post as saying: "Employers cutting hours is a good thing. It then gives that person time to pursue their dreams and passions.". (italics is edit DrFleischman deleted)

• As chief fundraiser for the organization, Charlie Kirk described his success at fundraising among wealthy, older conservatives to Joseph Guinto of Politico: “You can’t watch Fox News without seeing five or six segments a day about the nuttiness on college campuses. .... You pair that nuttiness up with people in their 60s and 70s who are beginning to map out where they want a significant portion of their wealth to go, and they’re saying, ‘I don’t want my money to go to my university. It’s not representing my values.’ Then we come along.”
  

This a "random quote"? It's reasonably short and illuminating description of the man's success by the man.

I restored this but trimmed down the quote.

• The third deletion was of this short paragraph:
  

Despite being a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, and not legally allowed to "endorse candidates or support political campaigns”, the organization did "work for two different candidates in the 2016 presidential race", according to what former employees told Jane Mayer of the New Yorker. The organization also "stocked its annual conference with a plethora of pro-Trump speakers, including Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump’s wife, Lara Trump."
These accusations appeared in the New Yorker and apparently have enough credibility to also be mentioned in Politico.

This included information already in the article, so I trimmed it also. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

References

replies

I think you missed my point. No one is disputing that these people said these things. My issue with this material lies not in its verifiability but in its noteworthiness. Why don't we quote everything Kirk and the others have ever said? Because we're writing an encyclopedia article, and as such we should only include material that passes a certain admittedly hard-to-determine bar. For instance, yes, Kirk did say that thing about nuttiness on college campuses. But what does it even mean, and what does it have to do with Turning Point USA? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

One of the most notable things about Turning Point USA is the amount of money it's raised. (Politico calls it "cash rich".) In the quote I added (the middle bullet point above "As chief fundraiser for the organization ...") its head fundraiser simply, concisely, in colloquial terms, explains its successful fundraising strategy. How can that not be noteworthy????? --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Campus Victory Project

Ccallana, I like the source you added, but I don't know if we should be including an exhaustive list of every targeted school, and even if we do, we can't put add such a large table that swamps the rest of the article. I'd like to get other editors' thoughts on how to handle this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Discussion has been moved below, please do not post here

January 2018 I'm proposing that the article Charlie Kirk (activist) be merged / redirected into this article. Kirk is only notable as part of the group; there's no need to maintain two stand-alone articles. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC) I second this purposal. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 07:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC) Decided to be bold and redirect Charlie Kirk to Turning Point USA after 10 days and 2 people voting yes. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC) I appreciate the bold move, but the consensus is to merge Charlie Kirk, not to BLAR it. This means you have to copy the content, not just blank it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC) I applogize Dr. Fleischman. I fixed it. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC) February 2018 I've re-created the Kirk page and cleaned it up. In my estimation, he clearly fulfills Wikipedia's standards for notability. If you disagree and believes he fails notability, feel free to start an afd. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC) No, we have consensus and you are editing against it. Start an RfC if you wish. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC) You can't determine on the page that is not the subject that it cannot have its own standalone page. If you believe Kirk does not merit a page you can start a formal afd. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC) @Doug Weller:, do you mind assisting here? [2] Thanks. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC) This is the way to handle a disputed merger. Not an AfD or an RfC. Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. Doug Weller talk 20:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC) @Doug Weller:, so would it be correct to say the Kirk article should stand now and if users think it should be merged, they should run a formal merge request through Wikipedia:Proposed mergers? If that is the case, should Dr. Fleischman revert himself here[3]? If I am mistaken in regards to the process, please let me know. Many thanks. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Everything is spelled out at WP:MERGE. WP:Proposed mergers is optional. And it isn't officially a forum for resolving merge disputes that arise on article talk pages, though I wouldn't be surprised if it's sometimes used for that anyway. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Well, WP:MERGE says "Controversial mergers: Most merger proposals are handled directly by the editors involved in those articles. But if you believe that your proposal will be controversial, then please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers to request extra attention from uninvolved editors. So of course it can be worked out on the talk page, but this is the suggested way to handle controversial mergers, which I interpret as being ones that can't be worked out on a talk page. I usually suggest it when there's a dispute. Doug Weller talk 21:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC) @DrFleischman:, would you consider reverting yourself then for the time being? [4] These two articles are by no means an "obvious" merge. Actually, I don't see it fulfilling any of the four stated reasons for WP:MERGEREASON. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Well I think the merge can certainly be justified under reasons 1, 2, and 3, but this isn't "my" merge, rather it was more the merge of K.e.coffman (who proposed it) and Jamesharrison2014 (who implemented it). It would be helpful to get their reaction. And FWIW I don't think this counts as a dispute that wasn't worked out on the talk page. It was worked out on the talk page and consensus was readily obtained. Then a editor came in later and disagreed with the existing consensus. That's a perfect setup for an RfC. But that's a minor procedural quibble; if Plot Spoiler wants to take this to WP:Proposed mergers then I don't particularly care. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC) @Doug Weller: WP:Proposed mergers isn't for de-merging merged articles, unless I'm mistaken. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC) I agree with Dr. Fleischman it is justified under 1, 2, and 3. We gained consensus and there was not push back or vote against it. I came in after 10 days of no commenting and merged the pages. Kirk is not independently notable. He is notable for his organization. There is a policy if you want to revert it but you can't just decide to do it. You must file and RfC and then it could possibly be amended. As it stands there was no aditional comments and after 10 days the consensus was to merge. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Comment -- since it was my proposal, I obviously support the merge. The subject is only notable in association with the group, so it makes sense to cover him here, as it typically done for minor groups like this. If Kirk goes on to something else notable, he may warrant a stand-alone article. WP:TOOSOON at this point. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Comment Agreed. Even his book is titled Time for a Turning Point. All anyone know him by is Turning Point. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Comment No, proposed mergers is only a way of dealing with possibly contested mergers. The problem withh doing it the way it's beenn done here is that editors at the other article who aren't active here haven't been notified and given the possibility of joining in the discussion. If they object there could be problems. Doug Weller talk 07:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC) @Doug Weller: I have to respectfully disagree. I checked to make sure that a tag was placed on the page notifying them of the discussion. See here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charlie_Kirk_(activist)&oldid=821843382 at the top of the page. Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. (talk) 11:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC) @Doug Weller: So what's the next step? Would it be appropriate for you to revert Fleischman here [5] and then they can start a formal proposed merger if they'd like? Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC) No. But it would be appropriate/courteous to notify some of the editors of the merged article. I'm not sure which. Of course you could argue that if it's on their watchlist they will have noticed and silence give consent. I'm not sure I like that argument though. I'm taking no action here. Doug Weller talk 17:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC) @Doug Weller: They're clearly just going to edit war and revert me if I re-create the page. What should I do? Do these three editors have the de facto ability to deny the existence of a page? Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC) WP:DRN? Note that two of the editors are good experienced editors. And I really don't see the problem. There's a redirect so anyone looking for him will come here. If there's more later on that isn't really about Turning Point and his section gets large, that would be a reasonable time to demerge. Doug Weller talk 17:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC) I've re-created the Charlie Kirk page. I respectfully ask the editors here not to edit war and continue to revert and instead launch a formal proposed merger in which more than three people can participate. Three people does not a consensus make. Many thanks. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC) As I mentioned on your user talk, if you don't self-revert this is going to end up at WP:AE, not at WP:PM. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC) @Doug Weller: Is it not eminently reasonable for the other editors here to do a proposed merger which involves the feedback of more than three people? We are are speaking of an individual who has had personal profiles in Bloomberg[6], Atlantic[7] and more. Written a book published by Simon & Schuster, one of the leading publishing houses in the world[8]. Advised a presidential campaign on attracting the millennial vote[9][10] and been publicly praised by the president[11]. This seems to be a very clear subject of interest for a Wikipedia page. At least there should be a fair hearing here in which evidence and Wikipedia policy is brought to bear, which minimally occurred in the merge discussion above. It does not seem reasonable, nor backed by policy, for three editors to have a veto on the existence of a page without going through the proper channels. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC) It's a content dispute. You are only going to get into trouble if you edit war. I've already suggested DRN. Doug Weller talk 19:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC) April 2018 Two editors are edit warring against the above consensus. They've provided no justification, so at this point I see no reason to consider departing from in. Pinging prior contributors to see where they stand. K.e.coffman Jamesharrison2014 Plot Spoiler Doug Weller --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC) Also pinging the edit warriors. The lorax Lionelt --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC) Do you call a bunch of banned sockpuppets talking to each other consensus? Even Doug Weller said this whole scheme to evade WP:Proposed mergers was fishy. – Lionel(talk) 09:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC) Your statement is false. Here's my justification "This article fails WP:MERGEREASON. Consensus has changed WP:CCC. To merge this you have to go to WP:RM". – Lionel(talk) 09:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC) That's not a content-based argument. We have no idea why you think restoring Charlie Kirk is superior. Not to the material is currently in duplicate because you only unmerged halfway. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC) Jamesharrison2014 and Plot Spoiler will not be responding. Jamesharrison2014 has been indefinitely blocked for socking, personal attacks and edit warring. Plot Spoiler has been indefinitely blocked for undisclosed paid editing. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

West Point

An editor added material about Kirk wanting to go to West Point, but his application being rejected, but my understanding was that one doesn't actually apply to the USMA, one needs to be sponsored by a member of the House of Representatives. Do I have this wrong, or is it that one is sponsored and then applies? Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It's complicated. See: United States Military Academy#Admissions requirements.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

"Racism allegations" renamed to "Instances of racism"

I'd like to suggest to rename the section titled "Racism allegations" to "Instances of racism". This is because the section mentions actual instances of racism, not only "allegations". BeŻet (talk) 09:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to recreate Charlie Kirk spinout article

I think Charlie Kirk has gained enough notability outside of his organization that his own article is due. As someone mentioned above below, he has been profiled in multiple reliable sources: "Bloomberg[12], Atlantic[13] and more." What were the arguments against doing this?--The lorax (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion is above below, called "Merge proposal" --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the article of Kirk was merged into this one, with consensus. Sure, consensus can change, but this is too soon. Plus there's no sign that the Kirk portion of the article is in danger of overwhelming the rest of it, and Kirk really has no notability whatever except for his connection with Turning Point. There's no need to spin it off into a new article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, would you mind re-posting in the "Merge proposal" section above below to avoid having these discussions run in parallel? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs) 23:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Merge proposal

January 2018

I'm proposing that the article Charlie Kirk (activist) be merged / redirected into this article. Kirk is only notable as part of the group; there's no need to maintain two stand-alone articles. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

::I second this purposal. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 07:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Decided to be bold and redirect Charlie Kirk to Turning Point USA after 10 days and 2 people voting yes. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the bold move, but the consensus is to merge Charlie Kirk, not to BLAR it. This means you have to copy the content, not just blank it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

:::::I applogize Dr. Fleischman. I fixed it. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

I've re-created the Kirk page and cleaned it up. In my estimation, he clearly fulfills Wikipedia's standards for notability. If you disagree and believes he fails notability, feel free to start an afd. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

No, we have consensus and you are editing against it. Start an RfC if you wish. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

::You can't determine on the page that is not the subject that it cannot have its own standalone page. If you believe Kirk does not merit a page you can start a formal afd. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:, do you mind assisting here? [14] Thanks. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

This is the way to handle a disputed merger. Not an AfD or an RfC. Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. Doug Weller talk 20:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

:::::@Doug Weller:, so would it be correct to say the Kirk article should stand now and if users think it should be merged, they should run a formal merge request through Wikipedia:Proposed mergers? If that is the case, should Dr. Fleischman revert himself here[15]? If I am mistaken in regards to the process, please let me know. Many thanks. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Everything is spelled out at WP:MERGE. WP:Proposed mergers is optional. And it isn't officially a forum for resolving merge disputes that arise on article talk pages, though I wouldn't be surprised if it's sometimes used for that anyway. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, WP:MERGE says "Controversial mergers: Most merger proposals are handled directly by the editors involved in those articles. But if you believe that your proposal will be controversial, then please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers to request extra attention from uninvolved editors. So of course it can be worked out on the talk page, but this is the suggested way to handle controversial mergers, which I interpret as being ones that can't be worked out on a talk page. I usually suggest it when there's a dispute. Doug Weller talk 21:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

:::::::@DrFleischman:, would you consider reverting yourself then for the time being? [16] These two articles are by no means an "obvious" merge. Actually, I don't see it fulfilling any of the four stated reasons for WP:MERGEREASON. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Well I think the merge can certainly be justified under reasons 1, 2, and 3, but this isn't "my" merge, rather it was more the merge of K.e.coffman (who proposed it) and Jamesharrison2014 (who implemented it). It would be helpful to get their reaction. And FWIW I don't think this counts as a dispute that wasn't worked out on the talk page. It was worked out on the talk page and consensus was readily obtained. Then a editor came in later and disagreed with the existing consensus. That's a perfect setup for an RfC. But that's a minor procedural quibble; if Plot Spoiler wants to take this to WP:Proposed mergers then I don't particularly care. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: WP:Proposed mergers isn't for de-merging merged articles, unless I'm mistaken. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

:::::::I agree with Dr. Fleischman it is justified under 1, 2, and 3. We gained consensus and there was not push back or vote against it. I came in after 10 days of no commenting and merged the pages. Kirk is not independently notable. He is notable for his organization. There is a policy if you want to revert it but you can't just decide to do it. You must file and RfC and then it could possibly be amended. As it stands there was no aditional comments and after 10 days the consensus was to merge. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment -- since it was my proposal, I obviously support the merge. The subject is only notable in association with the group, so it makes sense to cover him here, as it typically done for minor groups like this. If Kirk goes on to something else notable, he may warrant a stand-alone article. WP:TOOSOON at this point. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

*Comment Agreed. Even his book is titled Time for a Turning Point. All anyone know him by is Turning Point. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment No, proposed mergers is only a way of dealing with possibly contested mergers. The problem withh doing it the way it's beenn done here is that editors at the other article who aren't active here haven't been notified and given the possibility of joining in the discussion. If they object there could be problems. Doug Weller talk 07:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

::@Doug Weller: I have to respectfully disagree. I checked to make sure that a tag was placed on the page notifying them of the discussion. See here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charlie_Kirk_(activist)&oldid=821843382 at the top of the page. Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. (talk) 11:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC) :::@Doug Weller: So what's the next step? Would it be appropriate for you to revert Fleischman here [17] and then they can start a formal proposed merger if they'd like? Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

No. But it would be appropriate/courteous to notify some of the editors of the merged article. I'm not sure which. Of course you could argue that if it's on their watchlist they will have noticed and silence give consent. I'm not sure I like that argument though. I'm taking no action here. Doug Weller talk 17:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

:::::@Doug Weller: They're clearly just going to edit war and revert me if I re-create the page. What should I do? Do these three editors have the de facto ability to deny the existence of a page? Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:DRN? Note that two of the editors are good experienced editors. And I really don't see the problem. There's a redirect so anyone looking for him will come here. If there's more later on that isn't really about Turning Point and his section gets large, that would be a reasonable time to demerge. Doug Weller talk 17:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I've re-created the Charlie Kirk page. I respectfully ask the editors here not to edit war and continue to revert and instead launch a formal proposed merger in which more than three people can participate. Three people does not a consensus make. Many thanks. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned on your user talk, if you don't self-revert this is going to end up at WP:AE, not at WP:PM. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

::@Doug Weller: Is it not eminently reasonable for the other editors here to do a proposed merger which involves the feedback of more than three people? We are are speaking of an individual who has had personal profiles in Bloomberg[18], Atlantic[19] and more. Written a book published by Simon & Schuster, one of the leading publishing houses in the world[20]. Advised a presidential campaign on attracting the millennial vote[21][22] and been publicly praised by the president[23]. This seems to be a very clear subject of interest for a Wikipedia page. At least there should be a fair hearing here in which evidence and Wikipedia policy is brought to bear, which minimally occurred in the merge discussion above. It does not seem reasonable, nor backed by policy, for three editors to have a veto on the existence of a page without going through the proper channels. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It's a content dispute. You are only going to get into trouble if you edit war. I've already suggested DRN. Doug Weller talk 19:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

Two editors are edit warring against the above consensus. They've provided no justification, so at this point I see no reason to consider departing from in. Pinging prior contributors to see where they stand. K.e.coffman Jamesharrison2014 Plot Spoiler Doug Weller --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Also pinging the edit warriors. The lorax Lionelt --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you call a bunch of banned sockpuppets talking to each other consensus? Even Doug Weller said this whole scheme to evade WP:Proposed mergers was fishy. – Lionel^(talk) 09:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Your statement is false. Here's my justification "This article fails WP:MERGEREASON. Consensus has changed WP:CCC. To merge this you have to go to WP:RM". – Lionel^(talk) 09:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

That's not a content-based argument. We have no idea why you think restoring Charlie Kirk is superior. Not to the material is currently in duplicate because you only unmerged halfway. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Jamesharrison2014 and Plot Spoiler will not be responding. Jamesharrison2014 has been indefinitely blocked for socking, personal attacks and edit warring. Plot Spoiler has been indefinitely blocked for undisclosed paid editing. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

I'm notable! Give me my own page!

I came late to this party; not my fault, I am NPR/NYTimes dependent and only heard about him today on This American Life. So I googled him and Turning Point, and it seems clear to me that his activities have enough SIGCOV to support an article and that Turning Point USA, with a $5 million budget and burgeoning membership, is big enough that it is time to have two articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. He has no notability separate from the organization. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

No, @E.M.Gregory:, you're right on time! And I agree with your informed and concise reasoning for re-creating the article. I find your points extremely persuasive. Did you know that we already have a fully referenced standalone version of Charlie Kirk which passes WP:SUMMARY with flying colors?? It has 14 reliable sources! And 2 photos! And with a couple new sources we can make the new Charlie Kirk article merge-proof!!!! The old version is -->here<--.– Lionel^(talk) 10:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Don't be confused, E.M. Gregory: if I said the Pope was Catholic, Lionelt would swear up and down that he was Episcopalian. He's just pissed off, because he was shot down at ANI when he reported me. I wouldn't put any weight on his opinion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I suggest you revert that outrageous attack. – Lionel^(talk) 02:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

No thanks. I have the diffs to show that you're following me around, so I'm good. A few more and I'll be filing a WP:Harassment report. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: Kirk is not independently notable; everything that's worth mentioning about him can be done in the context of this article, and two separate articles are not needed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• That's really the point here - he's done nothing notable whatsoever outside of the context of TP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 7:33 pm, Today (UTC−7)

September 2018

I'm apparently coming to this discussion very late as well. I don't really have a dog in this hunt, but wanted to make a point. Candace Owens is not well known for anything beyond her work with Turning Point USA, yet she has her own article. Laura Loomer is not working for anyone anymore (that I know of, and she has her own article. Charlie Kirk has been on numerous other channels giving interviews and there are tons of references now for him and his views. My vote, if it means anything at all, is another in the column of support a stand-alone article for Charlie Kirk. By my count, that is several votes supporting and only a couple of votes not supporting. Not a concensus, but more leaning to have a separate article. More correctly, considering the heading of this section, I Oppose merging the Kirk article with the Turning Point article. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 17:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Wasn't Owens notable before joining TP (e.g. she was lauded by Kanye before joining TP)? Unlike Kirk whose sole claim to notoriety is tied to this organization? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: According to the article, she joined TPUSA in 2017 and was "lauded by Kanye" in the spring of 2018. That aside, she honestly did not become anything noteworthy until after joining TPUSA. Should her article also be merged into this one? No, not likely... — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 19:17, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Per her Wiki article, she became prominent in 2017 and only joined TPUSA in late November 2017. But you're right on the Kanye thing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

How do we resolve this with finality? The guy is NOT the organization. I just for the first time visited their page, and there are very many people behind the organization now. Charlie Kirk is a well known figure now. Isn't it about time to give this guy his own page? — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 20:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I just placed an RfC on the page Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard asking for advice and help on how to get this issue resolved. Hopefully, someone there can help us. I asked that they make their comments here on this talk page. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 14:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Struck edits by a sockmaster (Plot Spoiler) and an unrelated sock (Jamesharrison). Doug Weller talk 18:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose recreation Kirk's notoriety is tied to his participation in this organization, he's not independently notable. While I hear TadgStirkland401 I'd point out that WP:OSE is not grounds for article creation. Simonm223 (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support recreation @Simonm223: What would it take for Kirk to be as notable and worthy as say Candace Owens or Laura Loomer? I'm only using those names because they are from the same general generation and leaning of activists. I'm honestly curious as to what it takes to be notable enough to warrant an indespendent article, especially considering one of his employees gets one but he doesn't. Is it just because she's prettier? It's curious to me at this point. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 17:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

That's what I meant when I pointed out that WP:OSE doesn't provide grounds for article creation. Simonm223 (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

"third party sources"

Beyond My Ken, yes, and third-party sources, including the one cited for the very sentence ([24]) use conservative, as I mentioned in my edit summary ("and most used in sources."). The New Yorker also uses conservative, and while I'm able to find a couple of sources that use right-wing, the vast majority that I see use "conservative". Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC) (this is regarding [25] for anyone else)

Changes to Involvement in the 2016 Presidential Election

Hi guys! I read through this section and read through the entire New Yorker article that alleges TPUSA's involvement in the US 2016 elections. The entire article does not credibly source any of its accusations of campaign ivolvement and does not back up any of it's strong accusations with verifiable evidence - the article directly names TPUSA employees, as well as politicians, all of them being living persons. We need to take extra care to use reputable sources, as to avoid slandering individuals. The New Yorker is known to have a strong left-wing bias and I'm proposing that either

a) We rename the section to Allegations of Involvement in the 2016 Presidential Election

b) We remove content that relies on the New Yorker article

-Mwright1469 (talk) 07:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

References

The New Yorker is a highly-credible reliable source. So no, we won't be doing that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree it's a good source. But also that Allegations of involvement in the 2016 presidential election might be a better heading. Dicklyon (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Even though the New Yorker article had spelling mistakes in it (outside of its classic style) and it has quite a bit of sensational headlines, I'll give it, it's reliable. I think we should definitely include the accusations, but as Dicklyon said, we should consider modifying the heading. Thanks all! Someone feel free to cross off option B cuz I can't find the button for it. -Mwright1469 (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Refusal to Collaborate on Formation and activities

Hi guys! I'm a little new here but it seems someone on here already has a personal vendetta against me. I'll just cut to the chase.

In Formation and activities, the last sentence has a redundant citation. Beyond My Ken has been highly aggressive with me, constantly warring with me on all of my edits and has been stalking me all over wikipedia. I warned him and have now reported him but he undoes my simple edits like spelling. A little ridiculous but I guess that's how he wishes to spend his time :)

Can someone please remove the double citation, it seems that Ken has nothing better to do but stalk me and call me names. Much appreciated! Cheers! -Mwright1469 (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

If you'd spend less time obsessing about Ken and be more clear about what you're doing, things like this would be easy. I did it. Dicklyon (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Ken was harassing me and he has now been reprimanded for it by admin. Thanks for the edit. -Mwright1469 (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Ken has been trying to keep you from harassing us would be more accurate; but here he messed up a bit. You're welcome for the edit. Dicklyon (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: Thanks for the fix. I'm always happy to admit my mistakes when they're brought up by reputable editors without a POV to push Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Proper Use of Primary and Secondary Sources

To everyone who isn't familiar with properly citing information from primary sources, take a moment to read through and understand Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources. Secondary sources that incorrectly quote information from a primary source, such as news articles incorrectly quoting TPUSA's mission statement from their own website, must be replaced immediately. A primary source should be used in its stead. Make sure that you are sourcing ALL your information correctly and make sure that your edits accurately reflect the contents of your sources. Anyone continuously misconstruing information in bad faith will be reported to the notice boards.

Beyond My Ken please take a moment to familiarize yourself with proper use of primary sources. Thank you for all your edits.

--Mwright1469 (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I am very familiar with the rules on sourcing. What is the name of your previous account, for whom this account is a sock? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Beyond My Ken just read this. I replied to your message board in the admin page. I'm not sure what you mean but we should come to a consensus on this so we're not constantly going back and forth. I'm editing pages as a hobby (I figure you are as well), so let's cut to the chase. The current NY Times article misquotes TPUSA's mission. The ONLY place to find their mission statement is from their website - which happens to be a primary source. You said you are familiar with Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources, so here is a direct quote from there: a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. Can we start by agreeing on replacing the NY Times article from the very first sentence?

No. The Times is a reliable secondary source. I suggest you check the Internet Archive to see what the state of the TP was at the time that the Times article was published. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Ken, the organization's mission statement TODAY is to promote the principles of freedom, free markets, and limited government NOT to educate students about "true free market values". The NY Times article does not reflect accurate up-to-date information. We are trying to provide up-to-date information to people. Surely we can agree on this at least. I find it hard to believe that you would intentionally impede the dissemination of accurate information to readers. -Mwright1469 (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Have you checked to see whatthe mission statement was at the time that the Times article was published? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Just for you, Ken, I took the time to look it up in the cached pages. Unsurprisingly, TP's mission statement has not changed.

Can we agree now that the NY Times article misquotes TP's mission statement and therefore must be replaced as to not provide readers with false information? -Mwright1469 (talk) 06:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Nope. The 'Times doesn't say that it's quoting from TPUSA's mission statement, it says that "TPUSA's mission is..." We have a secondary source which defines TPUSA's mission, we don't need to use a primary source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC) Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

So the Times provides FALSE information is what you're saying. We need to remove false information. Ken, tell me the truth, why are you resisting a simple edit? Do you have a POV bias and are just trying to push your view on the article and that's why you're resisting this change? @Jamesharrison2014, @Lukacris, @RSquier, Dr. Fleischman would appreciate you guys weighing in on this, Ken is being unreasonable and has been warring incessantly. -Mwright1469 (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not false, the Times is just quoting their mission page, here. Bradv🍁 18:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

TPUSA page - Turning Point USA’s mission is to educate students about the importance of fiscal responsibility, free markets, and limited government.

Times - a nonprofit organization that says its mission is to educate students about “true free market values.”

Is there not an obvious difference between these two statements? The Times article is claiming FALSE information, and must be replaced with factual information. Since we are directly quoting TPUSA, a primary source IS appropriate here. Ken has a personal vendetta against me so if his edits are unreasonable, don't worry about it, I have reported him to ANI. His recent edits have been malicious and done in poor faith so don't worry about him. -Mwright1469 (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Mwright1469, read the next sentence:

Turning Point USA believes that every young person can be enlightened to true free market values.

The Times' reporting is correct, as was our lede. Remember that Wikipedia bases its content on reliable secondary sources such as the New York Times, and not an organization's own website. Bradv🍁 19:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Let's just make this very simple - here are 3 secondary sources that state TP's mission and the fact that they're a non-profit [26], [27] and [28]. Let's use these, and state TP's actual mission statement and get this over with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwright1469 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Mwright1469, why? Bradv🍁 20:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Because they're secondary sources and do a better job of explaining what TP is than what we had before in our lead. Mwright1469 (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Mwright1469, I disagree. If we have to include something about their mission, I prefer the Times' version. Which you'll note is not "false information", so this entire conversation is moot. Bradv🍁 20:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Brad I think we are misunderstanding each other. The Times does not correctly state TP's mission. I have 3 secondary sources (Politico, DP and The Hill) providing the correct mission statement of TP. The Times does not do this. We should use any of the 3 - we should use Politico and The Hill since they are the most reliable and least bias. -Mwright1469 (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Our job is not to "correctly report their mission", but rather to report what secondary sources say. The Princetonian article you linked says The organization’s website claims its mission is to “identify, educate, train, and organize students to promote the principles of fiscal responsibility, free markets, and limited government.” and The Hill says The group describes its mission as "to educate students about the importance of fiscal responsibility, free markets, and limited government." These are objective ways to do it, quoting what the group says without necessarily pretending to believe they are actually accurately describing their mission. I think I'd be OK with something like that in the article. Dicklyon (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

The previous formulation (based on the Times) was snappier than a quote while still being perfectly accurate -- there is no need for a direct quote, as long as we don't misleadingly suggest that we are quoting. --JBL (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Charlie Kirk

IS that really the best picture we can find? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 12:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? There are others on Commons. [29] None of them particularly stand out to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

It looks as if we have picked the worst picture imaginable so as to make him look like a gimbocile.Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Do any of the others look better to you? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

On the whole they are all a tad "action", I would rather we had something that was (in essence) a publicity shot.Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I can't say I see anything particularly bad about the photo.

Yes, it's not posed publicity photo. For the most part, posed publicity photos are going to be copyrighted, so we cannot use them. Unless you have a source for free photos that I'm not seeing, what we have is what we have. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Alleged instances of racism ?

The problem with that is the fact that although some of the "instances" might be called alleged, others seem more clear-cut. I'm not sure what language should be used. Doug Weller talk 14:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

"Turning Point USA is pro-military, pro-police, anti-feminist, and anti-Muslim.[14] "

Under the section, "Formation and Activities" is the statement, "Turning Point USA is pro-military, pro-police, anti-feminist, and anti-Muslim.[14]" But, it appears to support this merely by footnote 14, which doesn't seem to address these issues at all. "14. "Right-wing media exploit the death of an NFL player-turned-soldier to rebuke Colin Kaepernick". Media Matters for America. September 4, 2018. Retrieved February 15, 2019." Obviously a major edit is due. Hal9009az (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I just ran in to that same issue. The given source does not even remotely support that claim. I'll remove the two last points. There might be room for debate about the feminism issue (Owens in a personal capacity (and pre TPUSA) used to be a well known critic of certain excesses of contemporary feminism), but the anti-muslimn claim is without merit. And both are not supported by the given source. Tullius2 (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

bias in article

HEllO? Can we clean up this pile of dog crap? Its not the worse written article I have read but there is an underlining of hostility towards this group of citizens. --2600:6C65:747F:CD3F:F879:3211:5C89:7A38 (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

yes, dear anonymous - "We" can. But the "we" starts with you getting an account and doing enough good-faith work on Wikipedia to become an autoconfirmed user, learning how Wikipedia works in the process. Until then, you are just someone making demands. Wikipedia is a collaborative project that can only function if we all do our share. Thank you for your understanding-. Tullius2 (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2019

The DailyDot Article used as a reference is slightly inaccurate regarding the timeline of his resignation and the issuance of his apology (He resigned days before, not hours). Changed source to HuffPost article.

Please Change the following section:

In May 2019, it was reported that TPUSA's director for high school outreach had used racially inflammatory language in text messages, including multiple uses of the N-word. He resigned from TPUSA hours before he published an apology for the text messages.

To:

In May 2019, it was reported that TPUSA's director for high school outreach, Kyle Kashuv, had used racially inflammatory language in text messages, including multiple uses of the N-word. He resigned from TPUSA days before he published an apology for the text messages. ReadingRain (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please provide the HuffPost article you cite. wumbolo ^^^ 22:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Should Charlie Kirk have his own page?

Hello, what is everyone's thoughts on creating a page for Charlie Kirk? It seems like he should have his own page due to his sustained visibility in the media, but that's just my opinion. I would think there's been a discussion on this already, but I wasn't able to find anything. Any input or help finding a discussion would be much appreciated. Thanks, Leftist Commentary (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Kirk had his own article, until it was merged into this one. Please see the Archive for the discussion(s) which brought that about.

Incidentally, the answer is "no" - hes no't notable for anything except his founding of TPUSA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Beyond My Ken, I'll be sure to check the archives in the future before asking. I'm currently reading the past discussion. - Leftist Commentary (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2019

The Anti-Defamation League has identified TPUSA as an "alt-lite" organization and gave several pieces of evidence that individuals in TPUSA supported white supremacacy. [83]. Supremacy instead of "supremacacy" 82.76.235.91 (talk) 08:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 09:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Charlie Kirk needing his own article?

The consensus is against recreating a separate article for Charlie Kirk (activist) for two reasons: He is known only for founding Turning Point USA and there is not sufficient content in Turning Point USA#Founder Charlie Kirk to justify a spinoff an article. If either of these reasons changes in the future, there is no prejudice against revisiting this decision.

Cunard (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

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.

---

Would it be logical to give the individual his own main page, anyone interested in working on it? Bgrus22 (talk) 09:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't advise it. He had his own page, "Charlie Kirk (activist)", and by consensus it was merged into this article. Kirk isn't really noted for anything except founding TPUSA, so another article would be redundant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Beyond My Ken. 2600:6C56:6F08:1CF:0:464:3322:362B (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I think Kirk might warrant his own article. Even though he is known solely for TPUSA, he has a pretty high profile media presence as an individual and deserves further scrutiny. I'd support and be interested in working on it. EWBlyden 85 (talk) 12:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with EWBlyden 85, Kirk is notable enough to have his own Wiki page (he's a published author, has a strong social media following, regularly appears on news segments), and he just seems to become exponentially more notable as time goes by RawHide93 (talk) 03:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Everything he's done has been in connection with TPUSA. He's not getting his own article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

There are plenty of people in politics who only have an article because of their political activities. That he's been only involved with TPUSA seems hardly reason enough to reject even the possibility of an article for him. EWBlyden 85 (talk) 23:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Let's wait until he actuallu does something of significance that isn;t related to TUSA, alright? The standing consensus on this talk page is that he doesn;t need a separate article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the conversation is still active, we should let there be some opportunity for others to comment.RawHide93 (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

"... exponentially more notable ..." I'm exponentially gobsmacked. Shenme (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Should Charlie Kirk have his own article?

Should Charlie Kirk, the founder and CEO of Turning Point USA, have his own article, as opposed to the section about him in this article? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• No - Kirk had his own article, Charlie Kirk (activist), but discussion on this talk page (which can be found in the archives here and here) has decided multiple times that this is not warranted. I agree with that standing consensus, as Kirk has not done anything in his career (unless you count carrying Donald Trump's bags) which is not connected with Turning Point and its various subsidiaries. Kirk has no real existence outside of TPUSA, so a article would necessarily be extremely duplicative of this one. For all intents and purposes, Charlie Kirk is Turning Point USA and TPUSA is Kirk. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• No per WP:BIO1E. Founding TPUSA isn't so highly significant that being its founder makes him independently notable, and he's not notable outside that context. --Aquillion (talk) 04:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• Yes I vote yes. Looks like he's now the Chairman of "Students for Trump" - see here. I don't think he's going anywhere...Istina17 (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• Istina17 blocked as a sockpuppet of The Expert. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• He's the chairman of "Students for Trump:, because Turning Point bought Students for Trump, so it's still just about TPUSA. See this and this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yes There are tons of presidents/founders of political organizations that have their own wikipedia pages in addition to their orgs. ie Morton Blackwell of Leadership Institute, Kay Coles James of Heritage Foundation, and Matt Kibbe of Free the People to name a few.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Redspark112 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• Redspark112 blocked as a sockpuppet of The Expert. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• And, as even a quick look at their aficles will show, they've all done other things as well: held pubic office, served in political positions, founded other organizations unrelated to their primary organization. Kirk has done none of that. So far, he's a one-trick pony. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

::* Whether you like Charlie or not, he's one of the most prominent American conservative political activists. He has authored multiple books, has a top 25 news/politics podcast and is the Chairman and President of multiple big organizations. Also worth mentioning, Axios cited him as having one of the top 5 most engaged Twitter accounts.

• All of the "big corporations" his is chairman of are part of the Turning Point empire, and his "prominence" is entirely connected to it as well. I don't see that having an "engaged" Twitter account is a factor in Wiki-notability. He still hasn't done anything outside of the confines of his TPUSA world. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yes In full agreement with Redspark112 and Istina17. I don't realize that only "massively significant" was a notability criterion as Aquillion suggested, and Beyond My Ken's "carrying Trump's bags" crack really shows anti-Charlie Kirk bias that leads me to believe that BMK's political views are driving their intense opposition of to a page for him. Other than discounting his obvious significance on the basis that he only represents one organization, what is a reason that there should not be a Wikipedia pagee for Charlie Kirk? The "TPUSA world" is not hermetic, and Kirk clearly plays a significant individuual role in GOP and conservative organizing at the moment. He has been involved with plenty of other conservative organizations, like PragerU, so the argument that somehow he exists only in the TPUSA vacuum. And if you're really so opposed to him, the way to challenge him is by making as much info about him as available as possible. I'll be the last to argue for a Charlie Kirk hagiography, but he clearly warrants deeper investigation with a well-researched Wiki page. EWBlyden 85 (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

EWBlyden 85 seems to have been canvassed by RawHide93/Redspark112/etc.[30] - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• No With the same reason I had last time we did this RFC (check the archives) but also per BMK. Simonm223 (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
• Nope. If he moves on from Turning Point USA then maybe, but as far as I can tell this is all he does. No inherent notability and all that. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
• No Tony Stark is Ironman. No one else is Ironman, unless Don Cheadle becomes Ironman, But then Tony Stark will no longer be. The man and the suit are one. Charlie is the man, Turning point usa is the suit. There is little if no separation.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• No - There are two cases where he would have a separate article. The first would be if he were notable independent of the group (i.e., that there were significant coverage of his activities that are not directly related to Turning Point). This is clearly not the case. The second would be as a "daughter" article. Were the section on him to grow to such an extent that it begins to overwhelm the rest of the article. Again, this is not the case. At present, Kirk is notable solely for TP and the coverage of him here is appropriately handled as a portion of this article. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• No Unless someone can present evidence of his notoriety outside of TP. This person is no Morton Blackwell, et al. The most similar organization would be Young America's Foundation and Ron Robinson doesn't have his own page, and YAF has been around for 50 years. Tchouppy (talk) 00:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
• No He is sufficiently known only because of the company. Not anything else. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• Neutral pointers to this RfC have been placed on the talk pages of all the WikiProjects listed above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2019 (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.

Unfair writing.

This article feels very biased at the beginning. All it has are negative comments that make it look bad. Does anybody mind rewriting (or if I rewrite) it? Ramesty (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ramesty: any changes would require consensus and need to be backed up by reliable sources. Wikipedia reflects how reliable sources describe article topics, and in this case they tend to be critical. We do not give false balance. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Go for it, be bold! Worst case it can be massaged. PackMecEng (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

ADL

There appears to be some back and forth for the Complaints by the Anti-Defamation League section. I think the second part of the sentence, and note that individuals in TPUSA have supported white supremacy, could be removed. It is not cited by the secondary source and is rather ambiguous in the ADL article itself. Since most of the controversial in the article also mention Turning Point USA removing the people involved. What do others think? PackMecEng (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it's pretty good. Maybe something along the lines of "and outlined a pattern of behavior which links the organization with the alt-right, the far-right and white supremacy" which is also covered on the last sentence in this source — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk • contribs) 16:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The sources do not really support that though. It comes across as cheery picking. PackMecEng (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The ADL source outlines the pattern of behaviour. But that is primary. The other two sources reinforce the primary source. What is "cherry picking" about that? What are the non cherries that have not been picked from those sources? TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Leaving out the parts of that show TPUSA getting rid of most of those people as outlined by the ADL article. Also white supremacy are not referenced in either the WJLA or Newsweek articles. PackMecEng (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

So you think this section would be more balanced if it said something like:

"The Anti-Defamation League has identified TPUSA as an "alt-lite" organization and has outlined a pattern of behavior which links it with the alt-right, the far-right and white supremacy. The ADL claims that, despite efforts by TPUSA to distance itself from white supremacists, the pattern persists."?

I think this doesn't match the secondary sources, but will accept it for sake of compromise. TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 10:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I would not go with that personally because of the reasons discussed above, weasel words, and the original research. My first choice is to drop the second part of the sentence, not tack on more and more. Heck that last sentence you have there is not supported anywhere. PackMecEng (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

You've used vague criticisms twice now with "cherry picking" and "weasel words". Please can you state specifically with which part of that sentence you disagree rather than insinuate that there is a motive behind my suggestions? TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The cherry picking is only taking the negative in the sources without giving the whole picture. Which I talk about above when the source says they got rid of a lot of those people. The weasel words are things like "claims". The original research is saying things like "outlines a patter of behavior" and "the pattern persists", which is not supported by any of the sources. You could also call that synth since you are taking stuff from the primary source, white supremacy, and stuffing it in with the secondary sources which do not support that. Does that help explain where I am coming from? PackMecEng (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok great, so lets remove the primary source altogether and go from the secondary sources (as per Wikipedia policy). After all it's not our place to interpret primary sources. So we have: "TPUSA has been described as "alt-lite" group by the Anti-Defamation League." from Newsweek; and: "TPUSA has been criticized by the Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center for associating with alt-right and far-right activists." from WJLA. So why don't we put: "TPUSA has been called an "alt-lite" organization by the Anti-defamation league and has been criticized by both the ADL and the Southern Poverty Law Center for affiliating with activists from the alt- and the far-right". Unless you had a different source which mentions these apparent non-negative things the ADL has said about TPUSA. TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like an improvement from before and supported. Could use some tweaking over time but a better start point. PackMecEng (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

This page requires major editing (It’s a ‘hit piece’)

Re: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_Point_USA

While I do not disagree with any of the factual information within, it’s evident that the entire page reeks of left-bias in the sense that it’s rather inflammatory by not presenting any commentary or facts about what the organization does positively for its members or supporters. Wikipedia is supposed to present all sides and facts about particular subject matter.

Best Regards, David GTO3DEUCES (talk) 05:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

If I understand you, your contention is twofold:

1) The material in the article is accurate and sourced, but negative.

2) There is material missing from the article which is positive.

If I am correct in that understanding, what we need is representation of that "positive" material. If so, we need independent reliable sources discussing that information and to present the information with appropriate WP:WEIGHT.

There are a few potential pitfalls to watch for. We cannot take the information from primary or dependent sources. That Joe Blow of Movement X says Movement X builds homes for the elderly, it doesn't go here. We need a source independent of Movement X discussing it. That's WP:IRS/WP:PSTS.

If independent sources are mainly discussing "negative" aspects of a subject, this article should mainly discuss those negative aspects. That's WP:WEIGHT. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

TPUSA and the Kalergi Plan

For a while we've had IPs come along to this article with odd nonsense. Now I know one reason, see "Trump’s Favorite Right Wing College Activist Group Shares Photo With Nod to ‘White Genocide’ Conspiracy Theory" Doug Weller talk 16:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

"Pro-military and pro-police"

Just in case TheSLEEVEmonkey's and my own edit summaries weren't clear what the problem was, the article cited did not use these terms – searching the article for them was the first thing I did. Their use here clearly derives from a non-neutral interpretation of that cited article, and such use implies, in Wikipedia's voice (this is the important part), that the groups and individuals against whom TPUSA stands in opposition are "anti-military" and "anti-police". If Turning Point USA wishes to describe itself that way, though, then sure – that can be mentioned. But make sure such descriptors are attributed to the groups or individuals using them. WP Ludicer (talk) 05:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph

From my perspective, the lead paragraph lacks a basic a description of TPUSA’s mission and does not provide the Reader with “…the basics in a nutshell …” per [[WP:Lead] guidelines. Reviewing this Politico article, which is cited five times, states that TPUSA’s mission is to "identify, educate, train and organize students to promote the principles of fiscal responsibility, free markets and limited government." Adding this to the Body of the article and the lead paragraph will give this an NPOV for all readers.MaximusEditor (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

it's been a week with no comments; ready to add this as the second sentence in the Lead Paragraph: "TPUSA's mission statement is to identify, educate, train and organize students to promote the principles of fiscal responsibility, free markets and limited government." citing this Politico Article -- MaximusEditor (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 08:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Two more sources

Benny Johnson Delighted by All the White Faces at Turning Point USA Event (shortly after he was appointed) and [31] which has an interesting take on its possible goals. Doug Weller talk 16:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Separate Charlie Kirk page

His name is very well known in anything that has to do with American politics. And even beyond that. Why doesn’t he have an article yet? MB298 (talk) 01:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Last we checked, we weren't seeing significant coverage in reliable sources about Kirk independent of Turning Point. What coverage there was comfortably fit into this article.

Think of it like the drummer for a band with a couple of hits. Yes, sources about the band mention the drummer and maybe say a bit about them, but the sources are always about them as the drummer in that band. Later on, the drummer leaves the band and records a solo album and becomes notable independent of the band; now they have an article. The bassist, however, is still covered in the article on the band. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Bias

The article currently is mostly a left leaning criticism of TPUSA instead of detailing the organization with a well structured paragraph of criticism at the end. (Indeed, the overwhelming left bias of articles, is a broad problem in En Wiki). Tshuva (talk) 10:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

See WP:Criticism sections, this is not a good idea. And of course the WP:LEAD has to summarise the article. Our articles represent what reliable sources have to say about issues, if you find them left wing that's probably more to do with your perception of politics. Doug Weller talk 12:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Since there is a difference of opinion between [User:Tshuva|Tshuva] and Doug Weller; the proper and appropriate solution is to follow the [[WP:Lead] and [[WP:Criticism] guidelines, which clearly define the issues discussed above. [User:Tshuva|Tshuva]'s original point is that the TPUSA article should be a "... well structured paragraph (with) criticism at the end... " After reviewing the article in detail, I believe this comment has merit based on the Wikipedia guidelines. Most of the opening paragraph is reasonable; but the last sentence, although sourced by CBS News, is an opinion and not a fact. What is the name of the organization(s) shunning TPUSA and what spokesperson stated that? None are provided and therefore it does not qualify as a valid source; this would be more appropriate in a criticism section rather than the opening paragraph (which is supposed to have a NPOV). Also, the opening paragraph does not provide a clear, concise description of the organization's purpose and objectives (which is what the typical reader is expecting, based on the [[WP:Lead] guidelines).--MaximusEditor (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

The lede is a summary of the body, and this quote is useful for this purpose. The quote is clearly a third-party summary of the group's status from a reliable and independent outlet, presented with attribution. Further, there is an entire section explaining the group's poor status among conservatives. Nobody is obligated to agree with CBS News, but it is certainly a valid source. You may personally think it's subjective, or incorrect, but that isn't the same thing as an opinion. Grayfell (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah the CBS source can easily be left out of the lead. Serious did you read the source? My favorite part is the end where is says "This event is now over". Some hard hitting news right there. PackMecEng (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with PackMecEng, lets get it off the lede, the CBS article just seems weak after reading it over. Its short, doesnt really back up any claims it makes with facts ( in regards to being "shunned or at least ignored by more established media groups", if you make a claim like that in an article you need to give a reference of what/who). Which is the whole point of a citation is it not? With no facts we are just slapping a CBS citation on the end of a sentence to make it viable in the eyes of Wikipedia. --Eruditess (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I would tend to think that the CBS quote is a reasonable one to have in the lead at this stage of the article's evolution. It seems a reasonable summary of how the group seems to be perceived. There are other articles that could be cited - this Guardian (UK) article for example is much more critical. Or this one from the same source, for example. On the whole I think the CBS one sums things up reasonably succinctly, even though the depth of the actual source may not extend much. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I think one of the points being made is it's not good practice to succinctly summarize an article using a shallow citation source (the CBS article in question). If you google "Turning Point USA" and the word "shunned" you get this wikipedia article and next the CBS article, no where in the next subsequent relevant results is the word "shunned" found, that's not a good search response for people defending that it summarizes the organization, I reviewed those 2 other sources you put, one is about Turning Point UK (which is different the Turning Point USA) and an article about Candace Owens "defending Hitler" which I think is taken out of context obviously ( Here is an RS article of her clarifying those comments Article Link, and even then Candace Owens is no longer with Turning Point USA. I am going to have to say it seems biased and should be removed. --TomaHawk61 (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

From what I am gathering, there is a point being made that even though the article is very short, lacks any actual facts (as well as who authored it), and merely offers speculation, we want to keep it in the lead because it summarizes other points being made in another section (even though it does not reference anything from that section). I do find this article to be "reaching", weak, and serve a bias agenda; although users citing this reason may not realize it. (hence why I'm coming back to this Bias thread) This reasoning is bordering/violating WP:SYNTHESIS. I am making a motion to strike it from the lead. Let me know your thoughts, I will delete or at very least re-phrase it so it doesn't come off so bias. MaximusEditor (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Go for it, by the way here is a fixed link for WP:SYNTHESIS.Eruditess (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Which has nothing to do with talk page discussions. Note that we do use sources with a bias. WP:BIASED says that "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Bias is not a good reason not to use it. Doug Weller talk 21:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah, that is interesting, I didnt realize WP:BIASED was a thing, but it makes sense to me now, thank you for that information. However can you, Doug Weller , clarify what doesnt have to do with TalkPages? I am sort of confused. Eruditess (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Eruditess: the comment above yours about "This reasoning..." - it looks as though that's about editors, not this article. Doug Weller talk 09:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@DougWeller: It's my impression @MaximusEditor: was disputing Blue Square Things logic about how the cited CBS source is being justified as an overall summary in the lead paragraph of the article. Eruditess (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Eruditess: I agree. I'm not convinced his reasoning was based on WP:RS or WP:NPOV. Doug Weller talk 17:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I must admit I was not aware of WP:BIASED, so I am withdrawing my call to remove the final sentence in the lead paragraph. But following WP:DUE & WP:PROPORTION, the sentence needs to modified by adding something like: “TPUSA is the leading conservative voice for Millennial and Gen Z era and one of the largest and fastest growing conservative youth groups in America”. This will balance the lead paragraph because there is an equal proportion of TPUSA supporters that see the organization as a positive influence.--MaximusEditor (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@MaximusEditor: have you read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS? If not, go do that now and come back with the sources you want us to use. I'll admit that I think you will struggle as I doubt that you can find suitable sources and I don't see how we could do it in Wikipedia's voice. Doug Weller talk 21:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Independent reliable sources do not say that "TPUSA is the leading conservative voice for Millennial and Gen Z era and one of the largest and fastest growing conservative youth groups in America." TPUSA might say that about themselves, but so what? - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes I have read WP:VERIFY & WP:RS, but for good measure I just re-read them. Here is the PragerU article that I had in mind, it states that "Turning Point USA is the largest and fastest growing conservative youth activist organization in the country". Thousands of educators and university professors utilize PragerU videos as teaching supplements in their classrooms; with over 3 billion video views, they are a prominent source of conservative information. MaximusEditor (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I am unaware of any indication that PragerU has a reputation for fact checkign and accuracy. Discussion at WP:RS/N was, IMO, convincingly negative. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

You can go back to RSN, but I doubt that you'll convince people that PragerU can be used for a statement like that. Doug Weller talk 15:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Here is an article from Washington Examiner that cites: "the nation's fastest growing conservative youth group, Turning Point USA". I've checked the WP:RS/N and it isn't very clear to me if its a reliable source, there wasn't a verdict I could really find, I've looked into the journalist who wrote the article "Ron Meyer" and he checks out. Please review. MaximusEditor (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

IMO, part of the problem is likely to be that conservative sources commenting on what the biggest/fastest growing/most influential conservative group is are likely to have a conflict of interest.

In this case, The Washington Examiner is owned by Philip Anschutz, a donor to lots of conservative causes that fit his inclinations (pro-life, pro-gun, anti-gay, creationist, climate change denial, etc.). Yes, he's networked in with TP[32] and isn't really "independent" of the subject. Is his newspaper independent? That's a "maybe".

Surely if TP is the "fastest growing...", a source which is completely disinterested will say so. In all likelihood, it's not based on hard data in any case. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, I think TPUSA is definitely, if not the fastest growing conservative youth group, the second or very least third. I also think that I can say with confidence that this is a wide spread consensus among a lot of people, and therefore at minimum should be a viewpoint reflected in the article, for WP:WEIGHT if nothing else. If there isn't anything on the noticeboards saying Washington Examiner is a un-reliable source, then I think its green light, Philip Anschutz didn't write the article, so bias isn't really relevant, and the journalist who did (Ron Meyer) doesn't have a conflict of interest or any connection to TPUSA that I can see. TomaHawk61 (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Charlie Kirk puffery

An editor is edit-warring in puffery into article sourced to Charlie Kirk who is a liar and a conspiracy theorist. The content should be removed immediately. The editor has already violated WP:BRD by restoring the content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Have a source on liar and conspiracy theorist? For the record this is the edit in question. PackMecEng (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

A man who lies[33][34] and tells conspiracy theories[35][36] is a liar and conspiracy theorist. Furthermore, given that he's specifically lied about several aspects related to the coronavirus and been blocked by Twitter for promoting misinformation about treatments for the coronavirus, it is an embarrassment to Wikipedia that his own self-serving and unsubstantiated drivel is cited in the Wikipedia article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I could see conspiracy theorist with those sources lier is weak. Quit it. As for the the edit, I think Black Kite made a good point The problem is that you're phrasing it in Wikipedia's voice. It would need to be "Kirk claimed... For balance I'd mention that Kirk opposed the stimulus plans in the first place, so he'd look hypocritical if he accepted them.[37] Which kind of brings up undue. It goes they said they would not accept money and then said they didn't accept it. Seems like a eh so what? PackMecEng (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Snoogansnoogans took major issue to my post/revert about Charlie Kirk stating he didn't take any sort of relief from the PPP and is now labeling it as puffery, admittedly I worded it incorrectly (Not in Wikipedias voice). For the record I always try to abide by the Wiki guidelines and edit with much thought put into what is being said. Snoogansnoogans came to my talk page to ask me to self revert but by that time admin @Black Kite: had already undid it, but added how it could be reworded, which I see @PackMecEng: agrees with. Also I have found 2 other rs articles that corroborate the first citation. I understand that Snoogansnoogans isn't Charlie Kirks biggest fan but I don't see how you can take issue with citing 3 Reliable/verifiable sources with it being clear "Kirk claimed" (to adhere to Wikipedias voice), and to add in due weight by discussing how Kirk opposed the stimulus plan. since its following all guidelines. You don't have to agree with the veracity of the actions in the citation but to ask to deny the fact Kirk made a documented claim would be to ignore a noteworthy event? I am planning on using Blackkite's suggestions to implement that back in.EliteArcher88 (talk) 03:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Constant reverts by obviously bias user

It is almost ironic I'm starting a section right beneath this previous section post from user @Snooganssnoogans:, who has just reverted a CNN article edit, pertaining to violence committed against a Turning Point USA recruiter, in which he disagrees with stating "undue weight" and that "it was just one person". This is habitual behavior from this user who has as you can see from posts above reverted numerous edits on anything pertaining to TPUSA in a non-negative manner. Even though the article focuses on one single person, behavior such as that culminated to President Trump signing an Executive Order protecting free speech on campus which you can verify here from a reliable source here as well as here (Which was the cited source I mentioned if you bothered to read the sources before reverting). Having a user revert any positive material edits made within minutes has made this article blatantly biased, @Doug Weller: @Black Kite: I'm tagging you to direct your attention to this matter. Having signed an executive order pertaining to Free speech on campus, I think that we can all agree it wasn't a one off incident, its not "undue weight" and it has happened to more than one person as Snooganssnoogans reasoning claims.MaximusEditor (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Your text did not include that this led to a vapid executive order by Trump, which is indeed notable. That one person in an enormous organization got hit by another person is not notable in the slightest, and there was nothing in your text to justify the language that multiple TPUSA recruiters were assaulted. If this is to be added, it should be with a focus on the executive order that Kirk inspired Trump to implement, and a brief mention that a video went viral of one TPUSA recruiter being hit by a person who was charged for the assault. The text should also include the context that RS provide, which is that the language of the executive order was vague and that academic assessments of restricting of free speech on campuses show that left-wing political speech is far more likely to be infringed than conservative political speech.[38][39] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)