Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:*Your deletion edit was inappropriate to make in the middle of an RfC. I've reverted to the ''status quo ante''. ] (]) 15:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
:*Your deletion edit was inappropriate to make in the middle of an RfC. I've reverted to the ''status quo ante''. ] (]) 15:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
::Nope - this RfC had nothing to do with what I removed, so I took the issue to BLP/N. See you there. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 16:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
::Nope - this RfC had nothing to do with what I removed, so I took the issue to BLP/N. See you there. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 16:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
:::On the contrary, this RfC is '''''precisely''''' about the material you inappropriately deleted. ] (]) 17:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - This is pretty basic information, exactly of the kind that should go into the lede.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - This is pretty basic information, exactly of the kind that should go into the lede.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Revision as of 17:04, 19 June 2020
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.
Turning Point UK was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 14 February 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Turning Point USA. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
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 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
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
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.
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
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
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.
So there are some inconsistencies throughout this article as far as formatting goes:
Why are the "involvement" (aka "involvement in student government" and "involvement in 2016/2020 elections") sections not sub-sections of the controversies section?
a) The sections are all negative which makes the title of "involvement with 2016/2020 elections" misleading, a more accurate label would be "controversy with student government" & "controversies with 2016/2020 elections", and with that more appropriate label of controversy this honestly should be moved into the controversy section. Its an encyclopedia so formatting is important, some sort of agenda to push negative sections to the top shouldn't be the main focus of this article, albeit one can't help but feel that way when reading through it.Eruditess (talk) 02:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
After taking a look at the "2020 presedential election" section the statement made within is about how Charlie Kirk formed Turning Point Action a 501(c)(4) organization. Turning Point Action is a totally different entity than Turning Point USA a 501(c)(3), different rules apply to them. Turning Point Action should have a separate page if what is in the section is that notable, how does one go ahead an nominate that to take place? EliteArcher88 (talk) 11:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
So after having this sit in the talk page with no response for over a week, I went ahead and made the needed changes, user @Beyond My Ken: reverted it with no edit summary, which really calls motive into question, as Misplaced Pages guideline WP:FIES really urges you to leave an edit summary when reverting. Its an Encyclopedia and undoing a formatting change to have certain controversies up higher on the page than others is odd? I'm pinging user:Beyond my Ken to maybe clarify why he did this.Eruditess (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
No edit summary = "better before" or "Not an improvement". What else could it mean? No response on the talk page =/= consensus. Usually it means something like "Not important enough to waste time on". Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
BTW, WP:AGF, don't impugn negative motives to other editors, especially when you've been here 9 months and have 111 edits, and the other editor has been here 15 years and has over 250,000 edits. A better assumption would be that the other editor has a clearer idea of how to edit Misplaced Pages, at least until it's proven otherwise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
First @Beyond My Ken:, having 15 years and over 250,00 edits is very admirable and notable.
I could have worded it clearer, impugning another user was not the message I wanted to relay, apologies for that. I understand to take others users contributions with good faith, but do understand that a revert without explanation is confounding. But in response to your undoing of my Turning Point USA edit, I offer the following comments to clarify my original stance:
Misplaced Pages:Edit Warring policy WP:EW states that “When reverting, be sure to indicate your reasons.”
Misplaced Pages:Reverting policy WP:REVEXP states that “Edit summaries, always a good practice, are particularly important when reverting. Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Misplaced Pages principle you believe justifies the reversion.”
It boils down to this, my edit tried to clean up the articles format. Reverting my edit stating: “it’s obvious it was better before the edit”, is problematic because it maintains that certain controversies remain closer to the top of the article rather than where they belong, which seems to serve a purpose to make them more prominent. I understand what counts as better format flow is a “prerogative”. But format by definition is “the way in which something is arranged or set out.” To have unorganized sections wouldn’t really be an organized arranged format, it’s just sloppy. Of course, that is just my prerogative. And if we are worried about WP:Weight, I’ll just redo my edit and literally raise the “controversies” section header up two paragraph blocks. Which won’t change the weight at all, it will just change the organization of the formatting.Eruditess (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Here is what WP:CRITS has to say about how to approach criticism in articles:
"Controversy Section"-"In this approach,the article contains a section which focuses only on negative criticisms. This approach is sometimes used for politics, religion and philosophy topics. Great care should be taken that the section is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of complaints."
-I agree that to maintain this guideline, put the :"involvement in student government" , "involvement in 2016 election" and "2020 election" sections ALL under controversies, and if we have an issue with WP:DUE, just slightly adjust where the header is, by moving it up above the aforementioned three sections, and technically the article remains virtually the same (except with better organization), so no actual change to WP:WEIGHT would occur. I don't agree that it was better before your original edit User:Eruditess, keeping it the way it is as of now would be in direct conflict with WP:CRITS, I'd make the change and redo your original edit. EliteArcher88 (talk) 06:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Eruditees: This subject is a controversial one, and history has shown us that "cleaning up" controversial articles can often lead to whitewashing them. I'm not at all implying that this is the underlying purpose in this instance, but I think given the circumstances, it would be best to outline your planned changes here on the talk page before you make them. Then, after they have been discussed and approved, to make the changes in small doses, to avoid the necessity of a mass revert. None of this is necessarily required, of course, but by not doing so you set yourself up for all your changes to be reverted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
So @Beyond My Ken:, I understand your point about white washing, to clarify my context with using the phase, "cleaning up" would be in a sense a formatting one that will not change any of the contents wording at all, therefore no chance of whitewashing. I googled Wikipedias definition of whitewashing to be sure no such incident would occur, definition is as follows:
"to gloss over or cover up vices, crimes or scandals or to exonerate by means of a perfunctory investigation or through biased presentation of data"
-Since I'm not changing any of the wording , I'm not presenting any different data then whats already here, I'm just organizing it, which I think is a positive thing, I dont think anybody would argue to keep it less organized. To Outline my changes is quite simple, I move the "Controversies" Header up 3 sections to include the "involvement in student government", "involvement in 2016 election" & "2020 election" sections. In doing this the WP:WEIGHT would remain the same. To sum it up I'm not whitewashing it and I'm not changing the WP:WEIGHT, I'm further organizing it per WP:CRITS "approach to handle controversy sections" what more needs to be discussed?Eruditess (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, it's simple, but I wouldn't do it, because "controversy" sections attract unwanted attention, and by putting the student gov section in there and moving it up, you make it easier for someone to come along and delete the entire section. In any case, there's no real "controversy" involved with their actions in student government, they're quite well documented. Id leave well enough alone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I do agree with the changes that need to be met as per WP:CRITS outlined approach on how to handle the controversy section, and to follow @Beyond My Ken:'s advice and break it down into smaller sub-edits as to not make one massive edit. I will go ahead and handle the 2020 election section. After further investigation, Turning Point Action 501(c)(4) is an entirely separate entity from Turning Point USA 501(c)(3). I can see how it may be confusing to the untrained eye, as both organizations have the common "Turning Point" theme in their title, but the two are different types of organizations which have different rules applied to them. So it's appropriate and irrelevant to be part of the Turning Point USA article. I am going to make an edit following this post to remove it.EliteArcher88 (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
If your large edit is an example of what you mean by "clean up", then there are going to be problems. You removed sourced information on bogus grouds - I call that "whitewashing" and not "clean up". Please don;t do this again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken:, These are literally two separate organizations established with the US Government; a 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) and they must act independently by their charter. Claiming in your revert summary that they are the “same org” is just plain wrong. It doesn’t matter if the edit was sourced, properly weighted, a neutral Point of View, correctly formatted or have “Turning Point” in their name - the 2020 Presidential Election section has nothing in it that relates to TPUSA and therefore does not belong on the TPUSA page. This was thoroughly discussed on the Talk page and having this edit reverted, just because it is a sourced citation, is erroneous. This is not an opinion, this is being factual – so it really is not a topic for debate, you do not have consensus, so please undo your revert and improve the accuracy of the article.EliteArcher88 (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
They may be legally seprarte organizations, but they are not in any actual real-world way independent of each other, because they're run by exactly the same people, and have precisely the same organizational goals. They are two parts of the same beast, and eliminating what one part does because of a fig leaf that they're "separate organizations" is whitewashing, pure and simple. Don't do it again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken:, Whitewashing? No way. I can “maybe” see an argument for putting the first line of 2020 Presidential Election under the Formation and activities section to recognize a very minor amount of commonality. But the second, third, fourth and fifth lines focus on John Lambert and his prison sentence. What does talking about John Lambert and him going to prison have to do with TPUSA? John Lambert was convicted; Students for Trump was not on trial and TP Action has absolutely no association with John Lambert. And TPUSA is one step further removed from TP Action. Bottom line, it’s not notable to mention Lambert, a man who had been separated from Students for Trump by a margin of 3 years before it was acquired by TP Action. This section needs to be deleted.EliteArcher88 (talk) 01:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, your arguments are vapid. They are essentially the same organization, and I do not think you are a NPOV editor with respect to this article. I suggest you do not edit it any more. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
After reading through this post, I find EliteArcher88’s comments are NOT vapid; quite the opposite, they are actually direct, authentic, factual, genuine and truthful - but I find BeyondMyKen’s response to be lacking in any sort of reason, facts, or logic. The 2020 Presidential election section does not belong on the TPUSA and needs to be removed; BeyondMyKen please undo EliteArcher88’s edit.MaximusEditor (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Since the two organization share names and personnel, theyt are the same, and your opinion is obvious PoV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I also agree with EliteArcher88's edit, as I started this discussion with the intention to clean up the article, this being a good first step, I also believe I'm in the majority consensus to move the remaining 2 sections into Controversies, and I'll do that as BMK suggested one singular section at a time so that there wont be a mass revert. I don't see how that would be violating or whitewashing because it doesn't change WP:WEIGHT at all and wouldn't be changing any of the wording, as the definition of "whitewashing" is: deliberately attempt to conceal unpleasant facts about (a person or organization), changing a header isn't concealing anything, would just be moving the header to a more accurate position, which is what WP:CRITS directs us to do when approaching a controversy section. BeyondMyKen, I also will have to ask you please undo your revert of EliteArcher88's edit, having Lambert convicted 3 years after a company has its assets bought is more notable to the Students for Trump article (since he was a co-founder to that company, not Turning Point Action), its not really relevant here, as far as it being a PoV problem, having it in this article is misleading and could give somebody the impression Lambert worked for Turning Point USA and that would be wrong, factually wrong.Eruditess (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
There will be no revert. Stripping information about the 501(c)(4) organization "Turning Point Action: created by Kirk and under his control iws whitewashing this article, pure and simple, and that will not be allowed, no matter how many Turning Point advocates show up and ask for it. I will take it where ever is necessary if other editors start removing this material. We are not a promotional outlet for Turning Point or its allies, and we will not be used as such. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Lets review, all statements made were pulled from the 2020 election section source:
1) Lambert parted ways with "Students for Trump" around 2016. -Fact stated in the section.
2) Students for Trumps assets were bought by Turning Point Action a newly formed 501(c)(4) in 2019- Fact stated in the section.
3)Lambert confessed to crimes he committed in 2019-(3 years after he parted ways with Students for Trump) -Fact stated in the section.
These are all facts, these are all things directly stated in the section. So how am I not NPOV? Seriously how can one not be NPOV if all I did was reference facts from the section to deduce that it has zero relevancy?I'm sorry your argument doesnt hold up. How are these statements vapid? The time of Lamberts conviction is 3 years after employment at Students for Trump, which at the time Turning Point Action wasn't even formed yet. This is notable? How? The section is trying to make a correlation between a man who committed crimes and Turning Point USA, but there isn't one? There is no correlation. Please do not ignore facts, please do not ignore consensus. This isn't a promotional outlet, its Misplaced Pages, where consensus matters, facts matter. EliteArcher88 (talk) 09:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Again, a vapid argument, and illogical at that. What you did was remove information about Kirk's political action committee because it's not Kirk's parent organization. Ain't gonna happen. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
RfC: Concerning removal of material from this article
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
An editor is attempting to remove the following material from this article:
==2020 Presidential election==
In May 2019, Kirk created a new 501(c)(4) organization, a political action committee intended to target Democrats, called Turning Point Action, which purchased the assets of Students for Trump. Students for Trump had been founded in 2015 at Campbell University in Buies Creek, North Carolina by John Lambert and Ryan Fournier. Lambert left the organization some time after Trump's election, and in August 2019 he pled guilty to creating a fake law firm and posing as an experienced lawyer. The scam netted him over $46,000, which he will forfeit. Lambert also faces prison time. After Lambert's arrest in April, Students for Trump distanced themselves from him.
Keep - Turning Point Action was created by Charlie Kirk, the founder and head of Turning Point USA, to be TPUSA's political action committee to fulfill its political goals and take actions that TPUSA, as a 501(c)(3) cannot legally do. Although the parent organization and the PAC are legally separate entities, they are not independent of each other, as each is controlled and directed by Charlie Kirk. The creation of Turning Point Action was a legal necessity in order for political actions to be taken that if it took them, would lose TPUSA its status as a charitable educational organization. Given this, and given that the lede clearly says what the article is about: "Turning Point USA (TPUSA) is an American conservative nonprofit organization. TPUSA's affiliated organizations include Turning Point News, the Turning Point Endowment, Turning Point Action, and Students for Trump," the material is relevant, and the removal of it is inappropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete - I just removed noncompliant material, and my concern now is SYNTH. These are two separate instances, and while it can be added in the body text, it doesn't belong in the lead, and it also must be added per NPOV. Talk📧14:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
