Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:19, 11 March 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Turning Point USA article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 2 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC This article was accepted from this draft on 10 July 2016 by reviewer Daniel kenneth (talk · contribs). Organizations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance). Higher education This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Misplaced Pages. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education Education Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below. Copied Turning Point USA (oldid, history) → Turning Point UK (diff) on 17:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC) Copied Turning Point USA (oldid, history) → Turning Point Action (diff) on 12:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC) Copied Turning Point USA (oldid, history) → Turning Point Action (diff) on 17:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Sourcing in "Finance" section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What I'm seeing from the responses are:

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

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

Nobody was arguing for the inclusion of primary sourcing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Israel-Hamas war" section is questionable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1964 Civil Rights Act and Martin Luther King Jr section

Just removed the first sentence from "1964 Civil Rights Act and Martin Luther King Jr." section. The removed content was only applicable to Charlie Kirk, no relevance to TPUSA (As well as being from an Esquire WP:RSOPINION source as well as the quoted info was only found in the WP:HEADLINE. I'm concerned that the rest of the section isn't really relatable to TPUSA either, I mean the remainder of the information in said section discusses comments made by Kirk, one being made at Americafest. To clarify, just because Charlie Kirk made a comment at Americafest about MLK, it doesn't warrant inclusion on the TPUSA article. Coverage of the remark is singularly sourced and is not notable (A more and more common trait to this article). The remainder of the information in the section is not significant information either(Kirk previously liking MLK as well as TPUSA selling MLK T-shirts online are not notable). I think we should remove the rest of the section it doesn't really belong in this article. Eruditess (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm skeptical of this reasoning; when articles about the founding leader of an organization expressing extreme views also draw attention to the leader's organization, I think it seems ok for at least a single sentence mention in organization's article.

There is certainly more than one source in existence that makes this connection too. Just came here after reading several articles about it. I may not get around to adding it but wanted to express skepticism publicly. toobigtokale (talk) 21:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your input, I would challenge the idea that there are lots of quality reliable sources covering Kirk's remarks, and that Kirk's remarks are as you said "extreme views".

When I did a google search of "Charlie Kirk Civil Rights", The first article is a WP:GREL Wired.com article, (It's the one sole cited article in the problematic Civil Rights section currently referencing one relatable fact; that Kirk made the remarks at the TPUSA Americafest event). The following google search results were a litany of either articles that directly cited the Wired.com article as their source and/or were opinion pieces. With all the sources being opinion pieces and/or based off the only reliable article that is already included here, I can't agree with you that there is a lot of quality coverage from reputable sources.

As for the idea that he holds "extreme views", I think that since it doesn't actually state anywhere in the RS that his views are extreme inferring that they are extreme would be original research/WP:SYNTH. Kirk had opinions about MLK jr. -“MLK was awful,” Kirk said. “He's not a good person. He said one good thing he actually didn't believe.” He has opinions about the Civil Rights acts. Saying “We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s.” I stand beside my previous statements above, the section has nothing to do with TPUSA, I can't entertain the idea that Kirk's quotes are extreme views and that it improves the TPUSA article in any way. Eruditess (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I added NBC News, another WP:GREL source. Llll5032 (talk) 04:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding this NBC article just supports my argument for removal off this page even further.

The basis of this discussion is that the "1964 Civil Rights Act and Martin Luther King Jr" section is about Charlie Kirk's remarks regarding the section subject matter, which has zero relevance to TPUSA. This NBC article doesn't make any connection for the comments made about MLK/Civil Rights acts and TPUSA. It does however highlight that the comments were made on Charlie Kirks PodCast, separate entity from TPUSA. Llll5032, can you justify how an article saying Kirk made comments on his personal podcast belongs on TPUSA article?

Your addition of: "Some Republicans criticized racial comments by Kirk amidst conflicts in early 2024 between Turning Point and Republican Party leaders." is breaching WP:SYNTH, it doesn't state that Republican party leaders had issue with TPUSA anywhere in the article. The article does say that Darrel Scott "expressed concerns" to Trump about Kirks comments (the ones made on his podcast), that is it. Eruditess (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The NBC article, which names Turning Point 18 times, cites disputes with various Republicans about Ronna McDaniel, an app, and Kirk's conduct and comments. Llll5032 (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

In those 18 times Turning Point was mentioned, there is not any mention or connection from those Republicans making criticism of Kirk with TPUSA? That is why you trying to add a sentence in the article that there was, when there isn't is SYNTH. You took two separate facts:

1)That Charlie Kirk made comments on his podcast about MLK jr and the Civil rights act.

&

2)That some republicans think that some funds that went to TPUSA could have been funds that could have been put towards the republican party.

These two facts are different form eachother.

The information about Ronna McDaniel talks about her meeting with Trump and asking him if he was aware of his comments from Kirk's pod cast? -- No mention of TPUSA.

The app is mentioned about Tyler Bowyer and in connection to Turning Point Action -- No mention of TPUSA

Kirk's conduct and comments... From his pod cast -- no mention of TPUSA.

Can you show me where in the NBC article it states TPUSA is under pressure because of Kirks comments... I think that is what you are trying to interpret from the article.

Just copy and paste the quote that links the two. Eruditess (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused by your claim that there is supposedly no connection whatsoever between a group's founding leader and his group. Articles that discuss this event very frequently mention his role in TPUSA. toobigtokale (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

If you are saying that reliable articles discuss Kirk's role, then you can put whatever is said about his role in the article. If you can find WP:RS articles that make a direct connection for as you said, "the founding leader of an organization expressing extreme views also draw attention to the leader's organization", put it in by all means. But I can't find any actual quote from the cited sources that say there is a connection (the word "extreme views" isn't even printed in the source), that is a determination you made after reading the article. There is coverage about Kirk critiquing MLK jr. and the civil rights act on his podcast, but to make an editorial choice to say in this TPUSA wiki article that because he made comments on his podcast, it is affecting the organization would be SYNTH - ("do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.") it just isn't stated in any reliable article. Eruditess (talk) 03:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying there's no connection between a group's founding leader and his group. The question at hand is whether or not Kirk's comments should be put on Turning Point USA's page. Comments made on Kirk's podcast seem far more fitting to be put on his own page, rather than this organization, especially considering that The Charlie Kirk Show is not part of Turning Point USA (as his page even states). I'd agree this section should be removed but the comments by Kirk be put on his own page. AstralNomad (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Someone is saying that. "The removed content was only applicable to Charlie Kirk, no relevance to TPUSA"

I'm not engaging much more with this topic because it's not a high priority for me, but my skepticism about this has not changed. toobigtokale (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

It's pretty simple and straight forward, if the information added to an article directly pertains to subject of the article (in this case TPUSA) then add it, if not keep it out. There has been previous discussion on this talk page (When Charlie Kirk was being split out to his own article) that set precedence that stuff that he says or does as head of TPUSA should be listed here and stuff that he says as his own personal opinions or rants belong on his personal page. I think there was an issue with editors clogging this page with every single provocative thing Kirk said and so it has been addressed. Move the MLK and civil race comments to his page. Keep Kirk's personal views off this page. MaximusEditor (talk) 07:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

For WP:DUEWEIGHT the decision should be based on how much the cited RS say about Turning Point. If Turning Point is named with substantial context in the reliable source, then the source is likely to belong in this article. Turning Point is named 18 times in the NBC article and 7 times in the Wired article, so they appear to be DUE. Llll5032 (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

1. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/charlie-kirk-ronna-mcdaniel-rnc-trump-rcna139288

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• C-Class AfC articles
• AfC submissions by date/10 July 2016
• Accepted AfC submissions
• C-Class organization articles
• Low-importance organization articles
• WikiProject Organizations articles
• C-Class Conservatism articles
• Low-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class United Kingdom articles
• Low-importance United Kingdom articles
• WikiProject United Kingdom articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• C-Class American politics articles
• Low-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class Higher education articles
• WikiProject Higher education articles
• C-Class education articles
• Low-importance education articles
• WikiProject Education articles