Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:02, 13 August 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.

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: 30 days

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. RSquier (talk · contribs)

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 has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Organizations 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 has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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).

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Nikhil Sonnad (2018-05-31). "Why did Google list California Republicans as believers in "Nazism"?". Quartz. Retrieved 2018-06-01.

The contents of the Turning Point UK page were merged into Turning Point USA on date. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see Error: Invalid time. its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

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: 30 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. 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.

RfC: Concerning removal of material from this article

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

An editor is attempting to remove this material from this article on the grounds that Turning Point USA's political action committee, Turning Point Action, is legally not the same organization as TPUSA. Should this material be kept in the article, or should it be removed? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Material in qestion

==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.

References

1. Schwartz, Brian. "Pro-Trump college GOP activist Charlie Kirk will launch a new group to target Democrats in 2020". www.cnbc.com. CNBC. Archived from the original on July 22, 2019. Retrieved 22 July 2019.
2. "Turning Point Action Launches 2020 Expansion, Acquires 'Students for Trump'". Students for Trump. Retrieved 21 July 2019.
3. Brown, Stephen Red (August 6, 2019) "Students for Trump founder pleads guilty to posing as lawyer in $46K scam" Archived August 7, 2019, at the Wayback Machine New York Daily News

Survey

• 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)

  BLP vio - moved here which is the correct section - While this article is not a BLP, the mention of Kirk is still a BLP vio and an attempt at guilt by association for something John Lambert did which makes this a BLP vio, and must be removed. My attempt to remove it was reverted. There is an obvious attempt to associate Kirk with Lambert who pleaded guilty to something totally unrelated. The latter also results in violations of SYNTH & NPOV to make the connection between 2 legally separate entities with one common denominator which is Kirk as founder, and the target of the guilt by association attempt. _Talk 📧 13:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Your deletion edit was inappropriate to make in the middle of an RfC. I've reverted to the status quo ante. Beyond My Ken (talk) 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. _Talk 📧 16:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, this RfC is precisely about the material you inappropriately deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

BMK, Atsme is correct, the material she removed was not related to the RfC. The RfC material shouldn't stay or go based on being part of a RfC. In this case it appears the material was part of the stable article so removal would be considered a change thus it should stay until the RfC is closed. If it were newly added material it would be out until/assuming the RfC closes with a consensus for include. The material removed from the lead is not related to the paragraph in question as part of this RfC. Springee (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

No, Springee, as is usually the case, you are incorrect. The aterial is directly related and should not have been removed in the middle of this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken Casting aspersions by calling an editor 'usually incorrect' in an RfC, on an article talk page, is highly inappropriate and honestly, quite offensive. petrarchan47คุก 18:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• It has nothing whatsoever to do with WP:Casting aspersions. You didn't like what I said, fine, you have a right to your opinion -- and so do I about how often Springee is wrong. Do you really think it has any effect on anyone else's contribution to this RfC? I really doubt it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, you are incorrect. The subject of the RfC is clearly the S4T group. The material removed from the lead had nothing to do with S4T. You certainly can challenge the removal as you are restoring the stable version of the lead but your "active RfC" justification is flat wrong. Springee (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

This RfC is about the removal of sourced material in pursuit of whitewashing it. Atsme's removal was simply another example of that, and the claims she makes at BLPN are absurd. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Evidence that you are casting aspersions against me is in your edit summary of this diff and in the reason you gave for hatting the discussion below. I have also included your actions at the discussion I opened at BLPN. It is very disheartening. _Talk 📧 23:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

So your claim is that my edit summary of "Restore collapse of side discussion not pertinent to the RfC" is "casting aspersions" against you? Really!? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

To answer your question, you said the discussion you hatted was irrelevent when it was about the notice I provided for this RfC which is absolutely relevant. You claimed that my notice was not neutral when it was, and here you used my action as an example of "whitewashing" when I was simply removing unfounded allegations based on biased opinions and a comment that was violative of WP:BLPGROUP in the lead. I didn't think accusing you of bullying, bludgeoning editors or lying about my actions would be a better choice of words and that is why I used casting aspersions. I saw that you struck some of your aspersions against Springee but left the ones about me in tact along with your threat of taking me to ANI over the mistakes you have made. _Talk 📧 14:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

For those who would like to respond the Atse's claims on BLPN, the discussion is here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - This is pretty basic information, exactly of the kind that should go into the lede. Volunteer Marek 16:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Delete the last 4 sentences as the info about Lambert is more pertinent to the Students 4 Trump article. I'm concerned about WP:synthesis and WP:UNDUE since Turning Point did not acquire Students 4 Trump until after Lambert's arrest when he had already left the organization. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• BMK - you really need to stop hatting pertinent notices and discussions to this RfC like you just did ^^^. Please self-revert the notice, and the pertinent discussion about that notice and stop threatening editors to take them to AN/I over your own mistakes. _Talk 📧 13:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Actually, no, I really do not. The discussion was about notifications, not about the subject of the RfA, and it is therefore not pertinent. There will be no self-revert. You've just been praised by User:El_C for "deescalating", please don't re-start an argument that has been put to sleep already. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Delete at least the part about Lambert after leaving the organization. This sort of implied, guilt by inference is absolutely not OK in any Misplaced Pages article. The part about Lambert appears to have been something Lambert was charged with group TPUSA acquired. Additionally the source does not support that the crime in question was related to the student organization. Since the article doesn't say Lambert's alleged crime involved S4T the material is not DUE for inclusion in this article. This reads as a implying guilt via association which is a violation of SYNTH. (I'm here after seeing the noticeboard discussion of this topic) Springee (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• You're actually saying that it is "guilt by association" to connect Turning Point USA with its political action committee? I don't know whether to laugh or cry.Beyond My Ken (talk)

• I think it's clear. The crime alleged to have been committed by someone who never worked for TPUSA is UNDUE in this article. Drop the incivility. Springee (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• As I said below, I can live with the final 3 sentences being dropped. I cannot, however, agree to pulling mention of Turning Point Action from the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• In that case we are in agreement. Now please excuse me as I check for burning sulphur falling from the sky. Springee (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• From CNBC:

Charlie Kirk, a firebrand conservative activist and staunch supporter of President Donald Trump, is preparing to unveil a nonprofit that will allow his organization to campaign against Democrats during the 2020 election season.

CNBC discovered Kirk’s new organization, called Turning Point Action, after reviewing an embedded donor link that shows the soon-to-be-finalized group targeting Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn.

“Far-left radical Ilhan Omar doesn’t even want the Department of Homeland Security to receive ‘1 DOLLAR’ to enforce immigration laws and stop terrorists from infiltrating our open border,” the page reads. It adds: “Let’s show her how much we’re willing to donate to fight to REMOVE HER from office.”

The page concludes with a notice that Turning Point Action is a 501(c)(4) entity, which by law can campaign either for or against candidates running for office. Many of the themes expressed by Turning Point USA, either through its digital content or at its events, will be part of Turning Point Action’s messaging in 2020, the spokesman added. In the past, Kirk has advocated for a border wall and attacked political correctness on college campuses. He’s been one of Trump’s most vocal advocates and the commander in chief has noticed as he praised him at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference.

Based on the strong fundraising apparatus of Turning Point USA, its new sister organization will likely not have any issues raising cash for a 2020 operation.

According to Turning Point USA’s most recent tax filing, the group raised just more than $8 million in the fiscal year ended in June 2017, which was almost double from the prior cycle.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Delete the last three four sentences. "Purchased the assets" means Students for Trump is quite distinct from Turning Point, and so the material about Lambert is irrelevant here. StAnselm (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC) I'm really sorry about this. I miscounted the sentences. StAnselm (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• That's reasonable, I can live with that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry, what I though was "reasonable" was your first statement, re: 3 sentences, not your revised statement re: 4 sentences. However, see below re: 3.5 sentences, Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• First choice: Keep in full. Basic information about the org, with lots of RS coverage. Second choice: Keep everything except the last three sentences. I'm opposed to full deletion though. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keep part, remove part per StAnselm, et al. - what happened before it was part of TPUSA doesn't seem necessary to include. — Rhododendrites \\ 19:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Delete last four sentences and move remaining sentence Last four sentences are not related to TPUSA, inappropriate to have, must be deleted. First sentence should be moved to Charlie Kirk section, which is the most relevant section (he is the only link between Turning Point Action and Turning Point USA). MaximusEditor (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• I do not agree. The date of founding and founders of Students for Trump are both relevant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Delete the second to last (5 of 6) sentence and the one before it (4 of 6). I would say its a strong keep on the rest through. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Delete the last four sentences as they are not related to Turning Point USA. --Enos733 (talk) 04:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
• First choice: Keep in full. Second choice: Keep everything except the last three sentences. This is all unarguably true, so the only question is whether it's "fair" - I think it is, but it's certainly something on which reasonable people may differ. Guy (help!) 11:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't think it's relevant whether or not TPUSA is split into more than one organization. WP:UNDUE and borderline off topic. See also WP:COATRACK. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• You've totally missed the point, I think. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment For those still confused about the relationship between TPUSA and its political action committee, Turning Point Action:

• Charlie Kirk founded Turning Point USA - a fact, not controversial.
• Charlie Kirk is the head of TPUSA as of June 30, 2018 - a fact, not controversial - 2017 IRS Form 990,
• Charlie Kirk founded Talking Point Action as TYPUSA's political action committee - a fact, not controversial - CNBC article,
• Charlie Kirk is the head of Turning Point Action as of June 30, 2018 - a fact, not controversial - 2017 IRS Form 990O.

QED. Charlie Kirk runs and controls both organization, which are separated by a fig leaf, not a Chinese Wall. Turning Point Action admits that TPUSA's ideology will be the basis of their political actions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Whether demonstrandum or not, it certainly is DUE. O3000 (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Keep, but w/o the portion that starts with "Lambert left the organization..." as it's not quite relevant to TPUSA. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keep but MODIFY and MOVE to new section Yes I agree that all the facts you shared are true, but notice what you start every single fact out with..."Charlie Kirk" as he is the one singular common denominator. Therefore the ONLY real acceptable option would be to move it under the "Charlie Kirk" section and modify the sentence to: "In May 2019, Kirk created a new 501(c)(4) organization, a political action committee called Turning Point Action, which purchased the assets of Students for Trump, founded in 2015 at Campbell University." This accomplishes pretty much everything, keeps it in the article, moves it out of TPUSA and into Charlie Kirks section where it should legitimately be. This wouldn't really even be a problem if Turning Point Action had its own article, if it apparently is so "notable" some users won't abide not mentioning it, TurningPoint USA did not purchase the assets from S4T, TurningPoint Action did.EliteArcher88 (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - Like most here I think the main problems lie with the last 4 sentences and should be deleted. It is not related to the organization. The same should be looked at in the Students for Trump article which details the Lambert stuff as well. Though I need to look more closely at the timeline of events there. PackMecEng (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• Delete TPAction should have its own page, its hard to say its not notable enough to warrant its own page if some users will not abide deleting a non-relevant company from Turning Point USA's article. Relevant to Charlie Kirk YES, absolutely relevant( it belongs under his section) I see some users thinking that moving it there is white washing TPUSA's article because of some sort of association with TPACTION, but they aren't associated EXCEPT FOR CHARLIE KIRK, and yet again I ask why Charlie Kirk doesnt have his own page? Eruditess (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Including the fact that Lambert, who together with Kirk both found "students for Trump," pleaded guilty in August 2019 to wire fraud and faces up to 20 years in prison. By including the actual felony Lambert pled guilty to the sentence would read,

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: wire fraud, creating a fake law firm, and posing as an experienced a licensed lawyer. Lambert's fraud The scam netted him over $46,000, which he will forfeit, and now he faces 20 years in prison. Lambert also faces prison time. After Lambert's arrest in April 2019, Students for Trump distanced themselves from him.

it is basic & important information that belongs in the lead. BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Delete It is discouraging that this is even a matter for debate. The article purports to be about Turning Point USA. it is understandable that such an article might have a brief mention of the founder, although ideally this should be a standalone article about the founder with an extremely brief summary in this article and a link to the biography of the founder. I don't know the history but I'm guessing there was a standalone article and it got merged into this article but that's made a hash of things. Much of the section about the founder logically belongs in a bio about the founder but not in a section merely identifying the founder of this particular organization. If someone wants to make an article about turning point action go for it, but it doesn't belong in this article. if someone wants to create a standalone article about Charlie Kirk it logically would include a discussion of turning point action (but would not include the mud smearing about people not connected to turning point action). I see some discussion of compromise positions but those make more sense in the context of what belongs in a standalone article about Charlie Kirk not information that belongs in this article which is about a particular organization.S Philbrick(Talk) 22:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

• Proposal what do folks think about this compromise, removing 3.5 sentences:

  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, founded in 2015 at Campbell University.

  Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - irrelevant to this article. It is a separate legal entity and does not belong in this article. _Talk 📧 16:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC) Accept with a caveat - - it should include more about who they are and not boldly that they are targeting Democrats which is not neutral. For example, the BBC states: Turning Point pre-dates Donald Trump's presidency - it was formed in 2012 - and is non-partisan. They support conservatism, rather than the Republican Party. Some of the Creighton chapter - including the founder - didn't vote for Mr Trump, and the treasurer is a Democrat. But nationally, there are links between Turning Point and the president. Also see Politico. Those RS are following more in line with NPOV. _Talk 📧 14:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• That description is supported by a reliable source. If you have reliable sources that support your contention about Turning Point Action, the political action committee, and not Turning Point USA, please provide them. Beyond My Ken (talk)

• Accept. And although Turning Point predates Trump, Turning Point Action does not. StAnselm (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Sourced and obviously DUE. O3000 (talk) 15:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support but integrate I think BMK has addressed the big issue with the previous text. It may reduce the length of the section to the point where it would make more sense to put the 2016 and 2020 sections together. I don't see the integrate issue as a make or break issue regardless. Springee (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• I've struck the comment about integration not being important. I agree with MaximusEditor, EliteArcher88 and PackMechEng that TPS is not part of TPUSA and thus should not be presented in a way that would imply that it was. Integration into the material about Kirk (or perhaps some other option) would address this. Legally one is not a subservient to the other and the Misplaced Pages article should not imply it. If RS imply that Kirk would use his control over both to coordinate actions then that could be spelled out explicitly. It's simply not OK for the article to imply or suggest one is a part of the other. Springee (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Hmmm. Seems a bit light on just how problematic S4T are. Guy (help!) 18:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Guy: I'm not familiar with the usage "S4T". I'm sure it stands for something I'm aware of, but I can't think of what it is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
• BeyondMyKen: I believe "S4T" stands for "Students for Trump". MaximusEditor (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Of course, thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Accept with changes Need to remove "... a political action committee intended to target Democrats, …", you are using Misplaced Pages's voice to infer this is the official position of TPAction, where did you find that? This RS indicates that "... The group's official launch is expected June 1 …" (ten days after the RS) and the fundraising link using Democrat Ilhan Ohmar was a beta phase test link, so this is not factual information coming from TPAction, it is the RS interpretation of a donor test link. The RS implies they are targeting Democrats and also WP:HEADLINE. This needs to be WP:NPOV . MaximusEditor (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• The context of CNBC's discovery of the imminent launch of TPA was a campaign against Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Democrat. Later in the article, a Talking Point represenative wouldn;t name which Democrats TPA will be targeting, but did not deny that it was going to target Democrats: "The group’s official launch is expected June 1, according to a Turning Point Action representative who explained that the Omar link was the first of many beta phases to see what resonates with potential supporters. The representative also acknowledged that Kirk’s new entity will allow him and his allies to be more active in directly taking on candidates they oppose. The spokesperson declined to name the other Democrats they’ll be targeting, or the types of media formats they intend to use. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Partial support, You can see my full reasoning in the RFC section above, but really boils down to , (pending it advances past the BLP noticeboard) moving it to the Charlie Kirk section, heres how I propose the sentence should read:

"Kirk created a new 501(c)(4) organization, a political action committee , called Turning Point Action, which purchased the assets of Students for Trump, founded in 2015 at Campbell University."

The subject of the sentence is Kirk (as he created it, not TurningPoint USA). Therefore should be moved to the corresponding section for accuracy and relevancy.EliteArcher88 (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• No, sorry, you're attemoting to create a distinction between Kirk and Turning Point, but it's a distinction without a difference. Kirk is TPUSA, just as he is TPA. Neither entity does something unless Kirk wants it to be done. The sentence is fine as it is, and should not be changed in an effort to whitewash TPUSA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Disagree, I have no idea how moving a sentence that starts with "Charlie Kirk created a new 501(c)(4) org..." to the "Charlie Kirk" section is Whitewashing? I don't care if we keep the part about targeting democrats if that's what you are inferring is whitewashing. But keeping it out of the Charlie Kirk section is inaccurate , keeping it as is would be irresponsible because it could confuse readers through some sort of synthesis that TPUSA targets democrats because its one and the same with Charlie Kirk, and because Charlie Kirk is also one and the same with TPAction they must all be be one entity, which is factually incorrect, and facts matter on Misplaced Pages, its not really up to interpretation. EliteArcher88 (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support (Summoned by bot): this compromise removes unrelated statements that are unambiguously solely about Lambert and includes sourced information relevant to the article. Alduin2000 (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• General question is there any legal relationship between TPUSA and TPAction? I can see how articles about Kirk would tie the two together and I wouldn't be surprised if there is actual coordination. Still, I agree with those who say this should be part of the Kirk section. It should not be presented as if it were something TPUSA has done because it isn't. Sometimes we have tech entrepreneurs who create multiple companies. Company A and B may be in related fields but their link is only via a common founder, not because company B is part of A. Since this legally isn't something TPUSA has done (ie it is not part of TPUSA) it should not be presented as if it were TPUSA's 2020 election action plan. I see no reason to remove it from the article but it should not be a stand alone topic within the article. That suggests a organizational structure which does not exist. If such a relationship does exist we need a good RS that explicitly says as much. Springee (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• The question is irrelevant. They are separate legal entities. TPA was created by Kirk because TUSA is forbidden by US law from taking political actions. Both organizations, however, are led and controlled by Kirk, and TPUSA reps answer questions pertaining to TPA. They are de facto not independent from each other. We're not lawyers or law-enforcement officials, we don't have to recognize the fig leaf that separates them. Reliable media sources understand that they are not independent, and report on them as such, and we report what they say. All this guff about not being the same is, at the bottom, WP:OR.I also have absolutely no doubt that if the SPLC had a political action committee, the same people who want TPUSA and TPA to be treated as legally separate entities would be clamoring for the SPLC and its PAC to be treated together. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Not at all irrelevant. If they are legally separate entities then we shouldn't place actions by Kirk with respect to TPA in a category that talks about actions TPUSA is taking. To be honest, when I first read this I just assumed TPA was something TPUSA was doing as a legally separate yet controlled entity. This is something companies do when they want to set up a legally independent entity for various reasons. However, it turns out this is not something TPUSA is doing. This is something the founder of TPUSA is doing and thus it should be under the section about the founder (or not included). Also, Atmse is correct in raising BLP concerns here. If you are going to say Kirk and TPUSA are one and the same then we need to treat the accusations against TPUSA as accusations against Kirk himself. Your argument regarding SPLC is a bit off as a parallel. I agree that if the SPLC created a PAC people would want that in the SPLC article. However, it might be different if it were the founder of the SPLC, acting outside of the SPLC. Even then I can see it being DUE for inclusion since I suspect RSs link the two. However, we have to be honest with readers and make sure they understand this is something Kirk did, not something TPUSA did. That is why putting it into the Kirk section makes sense while keeping in a category that implies it is part of TPUSA is not acceptable. If you feel highlighting it is important then perhaps as a subsection under Kirk. Do note that if we want to highlight it we need RSs saying why it needs extra emphasis. Springee (talk) 01:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Totally and completely irrelevant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• You mean other than being relevant because it's a question of should the remaining content be slotted under something TPUSA did (which would be false) or slotted under something Kirk did. You saying something is irrelevant doesn't mean much other than that is your opinion. It would be a better opinion if it were supported with sufficient reasoning. Springee (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Agree with Springee, Kirk is a person, TPUSA is a company, TPACTION is a different company. A company is not a person (literally by definition), some people have the opinion they are the same, but its simply not true in this case.Eruditess (talk) 02:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Actually, the evidence from their IRS filings shows that Kirk runs both of them, so they are, in fact, related through him. But, clearly, you folks are WP:IDHT about that. You're also ignoring the fact that non-profit (c)(3)s routinely creating PAC (c)(4)s to do their political action for them, it's is not a new thing, it happens all the time. Such ignorance is being shown here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• I ask you not dismiss Springee's concerns, they are legitmate and neutral, and in my opinion quite spot on. I'm on the record as saying:Relevant to Charlie Kirk YES, absolutely relevant( it belongs under his section), so we both agree he runs TPUSA & TPACTION and is relevant, everybody I think agrees that is the case, nobody is disputing that. So how are we WP:IDHT ? In fact, you even say Kirk runs both of them, so they are, in fact, related through him. I emphasize, related through him. So seems pretty common sense to move it to the , "Charlie Kirk" section. If you think we are refusing to move things along I'll just start a new compromise proposal that uses the sentence you proposed and moves it to where it seems most common sense, I believe this solves almost all problems by honoring all the people who support the new sentence change you proposed and moving it to the most relevant section, which seems to be the only remaining concern halting the progress of the rfc. Eruditess (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support The part on Lambert was perfectly fine for the Students for Trump article, but not here. I think we can all agree that this version has all the pertinent information, without synthesis.Homemade Pencils (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support This keeps to the relevant stuff. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

New Compromise proposal

Seems that most editors agree to use the following sentence proposed by BeyondMyKen, yet are not in consensus to where it should be relocated:

   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, founded in 2015 at Campbell University.

I propose we keep the sentence just like that and move it under the "Charlie Kirk" section, Charlie being the common single denominator between TPUSA & TPACTION. The fact is that despite TPACTION and TPUSA having KIRK in common, they are two legally separate organizations which in reality calls for them to have two separate articles. But since that isn't an option yet, move it to the "next" most relevant section, that being "Charlie Kirk" section.Eruditess (talk) 05:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Eruditess, I don't think we should WP:COATRACK material into one article simply because two logical places for the material (a standalone article on Turning Point Action, or, better yet a standalone article on Charlie Kirk) don't exist. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Not 100% sure I agree that its WP:COATRACK but there does seem to be a pretty strong case for a standalone article on Charlie Kirk, that would certainly be a more appropriate home. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

There once was a standalone article on Kirk at Charlie Kirk (activist), and consensus was that he had no notability outside of Turning Point, so that article was merged into this. The question of whether he should have a separate article has come up at least once since then, and probably several timies, and each time (as far as I can recall) the consensus was to keep things as they are. Those discussions should be available in various archives.I, for one, do not see Kirk as notable enough outside of his Turning Point empire to have a separate article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

After reviewing those there seems to be a pretty clear consensus to include any Charlie Kirk related information on this page here. In that light I support the inclusion of the TPACTION material here for now. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye Jack, Let's see if I understand this. There is consensus that there is not enough to say about Charlie Kirk outside of his involvement in Turning Point USA, so there is no justification of a standalone article about Charlie Kirk. Now you were trying to decide what to do with information about Turning Point Action, which is not really biographical information about Kirk, and it is clearly not about Turning Point USA, so doesn't really belong in the Turning Point USA article, and while it logically belongs in an article about Charlie Kirk if it existed, that doesn't exist, so either create a standalone article about Turning Point Action, or if there is not enough to justify an article, then abandon it. What's the problem? Either it's important enough to justify revisiting the standalone article about Charlie Kirk or it's too minor to mention. S Philbrick(Talk) 00:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the assertion that information about Turning Point Action does not belong in this article. The PAC was created to implement TPUSA's ideology in ways that TPUSA is not legally allowed to do. The creation of (c)(4) PACs connected to (c)(3) non-profits is not at all unusual in American politics these days, and everyone and their Aunt Fanny understands that although legally distinct, the two entities are bound together by ideology and leadership. I've presented evidence from the IRS database that shows that both TPUSA and TPA are headed by Charlie Kirk, and citations from the media that show that the media understands them to be sister organizations.We are not bound by the legal nicety that they're separate any more than we would have been bound not to consider the Standard Oil Trust as an entity, or the Bell System as an entity, even though the individual parts of it were legally separate organizations - they had interlocking ownership, and were most certainly controlled from the top down.It does absolutely no service to our readers to present to them the fiction that TPUSA and TPA are not connected, in fact, it does a distinct disservice, because it presents a legal fiction as being a real world fact, which it is not. The only ones who gain by removing information about TPA from this article are those attemptpng to whitewash it and make it look as poositive as possible for Charlie Kirk. That's not NPOV editing, that's clearly oPOV editing.I plead with thse involved in this discussion who want to see the article be as useful and accurate as possible not to fall in the trap that's being laid here of considering two entities separated by nothing more than a legal fig leaf as being unconnected to each other. The facts are clearly otherwise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye Jack, As an analogy, imagine that we were working on an article about Coca-Cola the beverage, not the manufacturing company. suppose somebody proposed including a section about Fanta (maybe they were just looking for an excuse to talk about Nazis). it doesn't make sense to include information about Fanta in the article about the beverage, even though they are manufactured by the same Corporation. The article about the Corporation would obviously have a section about Coca-Cola the beverage, and Fanta and many other things. if there were no article about the Corporation on the argument that there is not much more to be said beyond Coca-Cola the beverage, one might argue that was true at some times but if Fanta is worth mentioning, then the corporation that manufactures them both is worth an article. S Philbrick(Talk) 00:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the analogy would work better if John Pemberton had also invented Fanta. I think a page for either Kirk or this other organization might be in order. We can’t really have it both ways, either we say that TPACTION is separate and different enough from TPUSA to have no business on this page (in which case we would have to find somewhere else to cover it) or we accept that TPACTION isn't notably different from TPUSA and cover it here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

A quick google says theres been more than enough coverage of Turning Point Action to justify its own page if we consider it independent. They’ve even gotten the President to give them a speech. Not so sure I wouldn’t lump them together though, friendly media describes them as sister organizations. What do you think? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're looking at. I found very little of substantive value about TPA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Sphilbrick has a good point:

  Either it's important enough to justify revisiting the standalone article about Charlie Kirk or it's too minor to mention.

In addition to Turning Point USA Charlie Kirk is a highly successful, accomplished entrepreneur; that has created organizations in multiple industries; easily Manages and Operates Large Organizations at 26 Years of age; on Forbes 30 under 30 list for 2018; is a New York Times Bestselling Author; Editor at Large for a national magazine; Columnist on several sizeable media outlets; Speaker at National level conventions; Guest Commentator on numerous media outlets; International Conservative Celebrity; and Social Media Influencer (Top 10 most engaged Twitter accounts).--MaximusEditor (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Is the phrase "intended to target Democrats" mentioned in the organization's mission or by-laws? Where did that terminology originate? RS?? _Talk 📧 06:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

While it seems that the conversation about this section has taken a slight lull at the moment, and that the conversation about Charlie Kirk getting his own page needs to be revisited soon(since it has been revealed there seems to be more support for him getting his own page then previously thought). I am going to implement the proposed changes for the corresponding 2020 election section from BeyondMyKen. The RFC was started as a result of actions I made in trying to clean up the articles formatting, this RFC strictly concentrated on the 2020 election section, I'm also looking to reformat the 2016 election section and interference in student gov section as well. But this is a start.Eruditess (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The edit you just made is fine, but you do not have a consensus to "clean up" the other sections, so please do not do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The removal of off topic material was good. The material should be moved as discussed above since it will keep the hierarchy correct. This was all newly added material so lack of consensus means remove, not retain. Springee (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

"As per the discussion above". Is there a consensus in the discussion above. I don;t think so. Any and all edits made to this artricle should be made only with consensus, to avoid the whitewashing attemts that have been going on for weeks now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, if the content is new but lacks consensus then it should be removed a consensus can be established for how it would be added. That is policy per WP:NOCON. At best it appears we have a consensus that the TPA material should not be under TPUSA's 2020 campaign section but, if included in this article, should be under Kirk's subsection since it isn't something TPUSA is doing. Again, if there is no consensus for how the material should be handled then we have a WP:NOCON state. Per WP:NOCON, "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." This would mean roll these changes back to before the content was added.

I vehemently disagree that such a consensus exists, and will working very hard to avoid any such changes being made along those lines. The whitewashing of this article is simply not going to happen on my watch. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

You all are dropping the ball on the whitewashing while arguing on this page. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you get it. This is newly added material. (EDIT: I see this is not newly added content. I confused it with some of the other newly added content which was recently disputed. Thus it is assumed to have consensus for inclusion. I agree we have no-consensus for how to correct the current location. Perhaps a RfC is needed) If consensus doesn't exist for how it is added then we have a no consensus and policy says it goes out until we have an consensus for how to add it. Your comment about whitewashing is borderline battleground. Springee (talk) 02:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

June 2020 edits to the lead

There is some back and ford regarding the removal of this material from the lead:

In December 2017, former employees of the organization accused it of engaging in racist practices, as well as potentially illegal involvement in the 2016 presidential election. The Anti-Defamation League refers to TPUSA as an "alt-lite" organization. CBS News has described the organization as a far-right organization that is "shunned or at least ignored by more established conservative groups in Washington, but embraced by many Trump supporters".

The material does not appear related to the above RfC thus I do not see merit in the claims that it should remain for the duration of the RfC. However, it is long standing so WP:CON requires establishing a consensus for removal. At this time I have no opinion on keep or remove. Ping involved editors @Nomoskedasticity, Morbidthoughts, Atsme, and Beyond My Ken:. Springee (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Remove - I have already provided my views. _Talk 📧 18:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC) See "Important note" below 18:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

  Adding - I filed the following case Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Turning Point USA prior to this RfC. My reasons for noncompliance are spelled out in that discussion, and I would think that the noncompliance with WP:BLPGROUP should first be determined at BLPN before anything can be finalized here. _Talk 📧 13:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

  Important note - the BLPN archived discussion without a formal close, but there is obvious consensus that the allegations of racism should be removed. To include the allegation of racist practices that does not meet the sourcing requirements specified in the policy WP:REDFLAG would be a blatant BLP violation. I am pinging the editors who commented at BLPN who have not already commented here: MONGO, El C, DGG. I also believe that since we are discussing a rather obvious BLP violation, a formal determination needs to be made as to confirm that it is indeed a BLP vio. To include that challenged material without satisfying WP:REDFLAG (also see footnote 9) and WP:ONUS will result in its removal. _Talk 📧 18:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

:WP:ONUS applies here given the WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE BLP concerns linking Lambert to Kirk. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, where is Lambert in the above text? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I was responding to the wrong text/notice trigger. I'll strike. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I contributed to the back and forth and erroneously reverted BMK, having relied on the edit summaries and the conflated RFC discussion about the disputed content. I didn't realise the error until I was reverted by Nomoskedasticity.. As for this pertinent paragraph, there should be more citations for the first and second sentence to satisfy WP:REDFLAG, which should be easily found.Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Remove Atsme makes several strong points, I agree this needs to deleted from the Lede. MaximusEditor (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• What Misplaced Pages policy do you base the removal of political descriptors by reliable sources on? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• The lead already does an inadequate job of summarizing the content of the article. The best approach would not be to remove this, but to add to it until it actually summarizes the article -- then we can talk about how to word it. As it sounds like at least one of the participants in the back and forth was doing so erroneously, this section may be moot? — Rhododendrites \\ 20:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keep, it all seems well sourced and moderately phrased. If the argument is that it isn't proportional to the body then perhaps the relevant sections in the body should be expanded. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keep CBS far-right, reliable source. ADL "alt lite" is opinion, that's a due weight question, not sure either way. New Yorker? Maybe not so much, though it is Jane Mayer, who is highly regarded, it's not an op-ed, and the use of racist memes is well documented later. A better reflection of their engagement in casual racism might well be possible -= from what I have seen they are not ardent racists but they are 100% on the "all lives matter" train. Guy (help!) 10:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
• Remove all. The New Yorker claim and the ADL designation belong in the article but not in the lede. The CBS piece is barely an article (it feels almost like a caption) and barely calls the organisation "far-right": that is in the body of the article, but it got changed to "conservative" in the heading. StAnselm (talk) 11:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• We go by the body of an article, not by the headline, which is not written by the writer of the article but by an editor, and in which words can be changed for any number of reasons, including space. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

But if the headline were changed by an editor that at least hints that "far-right" is the opinion of the writer, and not CBS's editorial position. StAnselm (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• StAnselm, see WP:HEADLINE. Guy (help!) 15:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

But do you see, I'm going in the opposite direction here. I'm talking about the reliability of the article. Interestingly, in this case the headline is less sensational. We might have expected "far right" in the headline even if the article had "conservative" - not the other way around. StAnselm (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Keep, well documented; I don't see any BLP concerns in these statements. Perhaps move the bulk into the body, while retaining a shortened version in the lead. But keep either way. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
• Issues as is, It seems this should be questioned on DUE for the lead. Given the volume of "controversy" type material in the article the lead should definitely have something about the controversial reception the organization has received. However, if we look at each of the three sentences in question as stand alone items I don't think any one of them should be in the lead. The lot should be replaced with a sentence or two that summarizes the controversy section of the article. The first and second sentences could be replaced with something to the effect that the group has been accused of discrimination against minorities (or similar) and has been accused of having associations with "alt-lite" groups. The first is problematic since we are sourcing something in the lead of the article, not just the body, but the lead, to anonymous sources. Specifically citing the ADL complaint in the lead is questionable given how short that part of the body is. The body has just one sentence on the ADL, why would that be DUE for the lead vs some of the other controversial information. Since I'm suggesting including "alt-lite" in a replacement sentence that would make the ADL's claim of "alt-lite" redundant. The final sentence might be a reasonable summary of TPUSA's relationship with other conservative groups but if we include it in the lead it needs to basically be across the board true, not true in just a few cases. Also, the CBS "source" is a blurb. It doesn't even have an author and certainly should not be used as a source in the lead of an article. If we can't find a proper example that actually includes the author's name then it's not DUE for the lead (and probably not the body). I do see the Atsme's concern regarding BLPGROUP. If the article makes TPUSA and Kirk basically synonymous then accusations of racism against the one would be effectively the same against the other. I don't think the article is quite at that point but I do think the sentences in question need to be replaced per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY and MOS:LEADREL. Springee (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
• Remove all from the lede, But as per MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH requires lede to be NPOV but without being too specific, and WP:REDFLAG exceptional claims ( that being racist practices) requires multiple exceptional sources. Not to mention per WP:REDFLAG claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community have to be prompted with extra caution. Leaving that statement in the lede has a myriad of issues, one being it might give somebody the impression TPUSA is a rascist organization, which would be irresponsible, but also considering some of TPUSAs biggest influencers were pretty diverse, being Candace Owens, Anna Paulina, David J Harris Jr and Rob Smith, that would seem to be very misleading. Maybe some very specific select occurrences happened within the company, but by no means is that WP:DUE justification to put it in the lede. Remove it or at the very least move it down and be very very careful with the wording.EliteArcher88 (talk) 01:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• Remove all I would have to assume this is the very reason why Misplaced Pages has a guideline like WP:REDFLAG. Eruditess (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

  Eruditess, that's not designed to cover instances where the characterization is unambiguous. TPUSA is not even slightly nuanced. It's 100% Trump-train MAGA. Guy (help!) 07:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Several new accounts finding this discussion somehow... — Rhododendrites \\ 16:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

  Rhododendrites, weird how that happens. I wonder if they reddit somewhere? Guy (help!) 16:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - it is well phrased and well documented. BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Keep, extensively sourced to reliable sources; the breadth and depth of coverage makes it clear that this is an important part of their reputation and of coverage about them. --Aquillion (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - I haven't seen any valid reasons for removing well sourced, DUE material. O3000 (talk) 00:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Keep, except for the "racism" which does not sem adequately sourced for putting it in such a prominent place. The reset of it seems adequately sourced appropriate summary. DGG ( talk ) 18:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Founder Charlie Kirk

The vast majority of this section seems to be a list of unrelated partisan-sources factoids intended to portray the founder negatively. The level of detail is unnecessary and not related to the content of the article at all. If there must be a section on the founder, shouldn’t it be a simple bio and not read like a hit piece? — Preceding unsigned comment added by O.Goethe (talk • contribs) 03:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@O.Goethe:, Well-sourced material complies with the WP:BLP policy even if it seems negative in tone. Previous discussions have come to the conclusion that the organization is not highly-distinguished from the founder and therefore the material on the founder is WP:DUE. Please state reasons why you think this prior consensus should be overturned before making large removals of sourced content. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Being part of the stable version of the text is assumed consensus for inclusion. I think removing it all at once was the sort of thing that is likely to get reverted. However, I think we could reasonably debate some of these as individual points, especially since many of these details are unrelated to TPUSA. That said, the legacy material should be discussed on a case by case basis. Many of the "Kirk said X" type comments appear to be his personal opinion, not statements from TPUSA. As such they aren't DUE for inclusion here. If they would be DUE in a Kirk BLP might still be debatable as the laundry list concern is also valid here. My feeling is, in general, if the edit doesn't explain why it should be included in the context of the section or parent article, it's probably not due. Springee (talk) 11:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by O.Goethe (talk • contribs) 11:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The cited source for one of the Kirk-said-this sentences, inserted by BeŻet, is akspticalhuman.com (Anton Dybal). Is there some doubt that this is a blog and that WP:BLPSPS is relevant? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I think a ProPublica report on Kirk's salary belongs in his section. It's fairly basic bio info. It also ties into how TPUSA has become bigger. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, especially the part about the value of his home. Unless we have RSs making an issue of Kirk's salary why would this be DUE in the article? Springee (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

ProPublica is a reliable source, one of the most reliable in fact. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

This isn't a question of reliability but DUE. Why is Kirk's personal information like the value of his home being mentioned in the article? Do we have sources saying this is a controversial thing like say the CEO of a company that's hardly ever made a profit getting a $1b pay package? The whole section on Kirk is filled with issues like this. Remember, just because a fact is verifiable doesn't mean it's DUE. Springee (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind if we remove his incorrect statements about Cuba and small businesses as indeed they might be considered not WP:DUE, however things like his incorrect statement about the "We want Trump" chants which was later retweeted by the president of United States are quite noteworthy. BeŻet (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:FART stills applies even in the case of a POTUS. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The sourcing for that paragraph is very poor. Fact checkers are generally not acceptable to establish WEIGHT for inclusion. I also do not believe that "A Skeptical Human" is reliable source. It looks like a single person blog. The Aug 2019 claim against google and the Feb 2020 claim against Pelosi also seem like undue material. We need to remember that even if that material is DUE in an article about Kirk, this is an article about TPUSA so the material needs to be something that directly impacts TPUSA, not just something Kirk said outside of the TPUSA context (this is not saying the material would or would not be DUE in an Kirk BLP). Personally I think there is enough content here for a short article on Kirk which would avoid some of the questions regarding "is this related to TPUSA or just Kirk". Springee (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Springee and Emir. It seems you’re able to explain the issues I have with this section better than I am, and I’m glad you both chimed in. It seems like we’re moving towards significantly trimming this section down. O.Goethe (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest picking one paragraph at a time, suggest why you think it should be removed and see if you get any push back. If not, then remove it. Springee (talk) 03:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Charlie Kirks section is riddled with WP:UNDUE material. I agree it should be trimmed down immensely. Springee is correct in mentioning it best to edit one paragraph at a time, as to prevent one massive revert, and make it more modular for other editors to give more particular feedback. I will give the section a closer look as well and add some edits where necessary.Eruditess (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Secret Program Statement in Lead

@Nomoskedasticity and Sychonic: regarding this edit ]. In looking at the sources I think the proposed change makes sense. The NPR article doesn't support the claim of a secret program. The Chronicle claims the program is secret yet they cite a speech where Kirk talks about it. The Chronicle doesn't really support the "secret" claim. Sychonic's version of the text is more neutral but I think it has a flaw discussed below. In the previous discussion above it was suggested that a number of other sources back the "secret plan" claim but a review of the offered sources doesn't support that. Several note that TPUSA's donor list is secret. Others say that Kirk denies that there is a "secret plan". I personally do not think this material is DUE for the lead but that is another matter. Currently there is only one source for the "secret program" claim so such a statement should be neutrally attributed. It would probably be best to say something like "support student campaigns" or similar. So the current text is problematic because the "secret plan" claim is not attributed and honestly not well supported by the source. Conversely, Sychonic's text suggests that a plan to influence student body elections is attributed to only the Chronicle. If the "secret" part is removed then we have a well supported statement (again we need the phrasing to be impartial). I would suggest a meeting in the middle. Springee (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussions you may be interested in at Talk:Students for Trump

There are discussions you may be interested in at Talk:Students for Trump. --Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Notice

Template:BLP noticeboard

Turning Point USA co-founder dies of coronavirus-related complications

Politico is referring to Bill Montgomery as a co-founder of TPUSA, though he’s only mentioned once in the article. – XYZt (talk  |  contribs) – 04:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Bill Montgomery refered to himself as a "founding board member" on his LinkedIn page prior to his death (https://www.linkedin.com/in/bill-montgomery-50137632/), a ProPublica piece on July 21st refers to Montgomery as a co-founder (https://www.propublica.org/article/at-this-trump-favored-charity-financial-reporting-is-questionable-and-insiders-are-cashing-in), Fox News does so too (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bill-montgomery-co-founder-of-turning-point-usa-dies) as does The Daily Beast (https://www.thedailybeast.com/turning-point-usa-co-founder-bill-montgomery-dies-of-covid-19). Charlie Kirk also wrote a tweet (https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1288158616130740224) saying "Bill Montgomery passed away at 80. He believed in me. He poured his heart & soul & time into me. He took a risk on me and without Bill Montgomery, there is no @TPUSA". Based on this evidence, I think that Montgomery should definitely be mentioned in the article as a founder and I worry that his lack of inclusion is part of an attempt to present 'Turning Point USA' as a grassroots youth movement when it was financed and led from the start by older and wealthier people.Boredintheevening (talk) 10:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

It's interesting that if one searches for Montgomery references prior to July 1, 2020 it seems TPUSA is rarely mentioned. However, after his death many articles call him the co-founder. I suspect that Montgomery should receive some mention in the founding section. I think that should be based on pre-July 2020 articles because it seems the recent ones are repeating the same source claim (regardless of where that claim came from). Sources such as this Atlantic article might provide a better understanding for Montgomery's roll in the organization ]. I'm not a fan of Buzzfeednews but this article again provides a bit of insight ]. It seems Montgomery's contribution was a combination if encouragement and early networking. For that reason I think Montgomery is a critical part of the story of the founding but I'm not sure why he would be called a "co-founder". So far as I can tell that seems to be a retrospective assessment. Still, it would be 100% accurate based on the older sources to say Montgomery helped found or was instrumental in Kirk's founding of. BTW, founding board member isn't the same thing as a founder. That means they were part of the organization's initial board of directors. That doesn't make initial board members founders (though they might also be). Springee (talk) 13:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I've created an article Bill Montgomery (Turning Point USA), as he seems to pass WP:GNG. -- The Anome (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The lead should cover the group's misinformation efforts

Given that the group is pushing COVID-19 conspiracy theories and falsehoods about voter fraud, I think it's reasonable and DUE that the lead covers how the group's rhetoric walks "the line between mainstream conservative opinion and outright disinformation", as the NY Times put it. Currently, the lead only quotes TPUSA's own description of promoting"the principles of fiscal responsibility, free markets and limited government." It would be helpful to readers to clarify that there is more to this group's rhetoric than that. An attributed statement from the NY Times seems good. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

A single article from a NYT political writer is not sufficient for the claim to be in the lead. That is a rather provocative line that is dances near the BLP violation line since the article level backing isn't robust for such a generalized statement. As a rule we should be careful about putting such lines in what is supposed to be an encyclopedic article, not a political persuasion article. Lines like that should never be in an article lead since we don't show they are the summary of multiple sources. Since this is such a partisan issue I think you would need to find sources on both sides of the fence that defend that POV. Remember, we aren't here to convince readers that the subject of a wiki article is a bad person/organization etc. We are (supposed to be) here to provide an impartial telling. Springee (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

It would be very misleading to add Snooganssnoogans edit because the New York Times article is referring to Charlie Kirk and not directly to TPUSA. But is it about Charlie Kirk the person (and his 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech); Charlie Kirk the spokesperson for Turning Point Action; Charlie Kirk the spokesperson for TPUSA; or, as the article states, Mr. Kirk the “new breed of political agitator”? Is Charlie Kirk , (Who is often and at great lengths discussed here and was a topic of conversation in the RFC to get his own article) notable enough to get his own page? He has one of the most engaged twitter accounts in the world and he is recurring commentator on political talk shows, as well as an author and even made forbes list 30 under 30. How do we go about nominating a revisit of a discussion to give him his own article?MaximusEditor (talk) 07:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

MaximusEditor, "freeze peach" is the absolute worst argument for promoting disinformation that's actually killing people, you know that, right? Guy (help!) 08:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Spokespeople don’t get to voice their personal opinions... Thats part of their job. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks like more of Kirk's rantings and not directly related to the subject of this article. Yes Kirk has his own section, but that is only for things he says and does in direct relation to the organization. Which this falls outside of. Otherwise the section turns into a coat rack. PackMecEng (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I feel like if Kirk had his own page half of the arguments on this page would be unnecessary. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, you are probably right. I don't recall exactly but didn't he at one point and it got merged into here? PackMecEng (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there was once a Charlie Kirk (activist) article, it was merged along with discussions such as here. Beyond My Ken mentioned this fact on June 28. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Second (or third) that. To be clear, as added I would still have a concern about this quote. This is a rather provocative yet not entirely informative quote. For instance, if we said "The NYT said Mr JM is a known liar" we would have a problematic quote. It's an ugly label but given without evidence. That would be fine if this were Wikitabloid. Instead, the more encyclopedic way to hand this is to present the evidence provided by others and then summarize in an impartial tone. Thus "Mr JM lost several libel suits related to accusations made against business competitors. Mr JM accused Mr KS of over stating profits in Q2. Mr JM's own Q2 profit statements were later found to be fraudulent" As an encyclopedia we need to stick to an impartial tone. The user shouldn't ever get the idea that the article was written by someone who wanted to persuade the reader that the subject is a bad person/organization/thing. Springee (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Keeping things in perspective - this is not a BLP but because of Kirk's connection, BLP policy does apply. It is not our job to debate the science of COVID-19 or expound on, much less include, Kirk's beliefs or ideologies which appear to be more controversial than the actual work of TPUSA. As editors we "should not become focused on bolstering and subsequently refuting views or theories" about COVID, especially when it has nothing to do with the purpose of TPUSA. Such debates actually belong in articles that focus on COVID, not here or in Kirk's section, or in his bio if we had a standalone BLP. If the latter were true, it would be appropriate to succinctly state his view, if it's determined to be DUE and passes WP:10YT, and link to the relative articles about COVID. _Talk 📧 20:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, well, it turns out that sources are picking up the deletion of tweets mocking masks following the death of Bill Montgomery: https://www.rawstory.com/2020/07/pro-trump-group-deletes-image-mocking-masks-after-co-founder-dies-from-19/ https://www.businessinsider.com/tpusa-deletes-tweet-mocking-masks-after-montgomery-coronavirus-death-2020-7 https://www.dailydot.com/debug/turning-point-usa-co-founder-dies-covid-19/ Guy (help!) 00:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Guy, as it turns out - per WP:RS/Perennial: Daily Dot - "Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article"; Business Insider: "additional considerations apply: The source is marginally reliable"; Raw Story: - tabloids, no thanks. Tweets - not for this. You know better than that, Guy. _Talk 📧 01:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, As I said, it turns out that sources are picking up the deletion of tweets mocking masks following the death of Bill Montgomery. I didn't add it to the article because none of the sources at that time meet my criteria for reliability. But they were the first of many: https://www.businessinsider.com/tpusa-deletes-tweet-mocking-masks-after-montgomery-coronavirus-death-2020-7?r=US&IR=T, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/pro-trump-youth-group-tpusa-deleted-a-tweet-mocking-protective-masks-after-its-co-founder-died-with-the-coronavirus/ar-BB17mMq9, https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/29/turning-point-usa-founder-dies-coronavirus-complications-387077, also note this from April in the Chicago Triubune: https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/sns-nyt-conservative-activist-weaponizes-pandemic-20200420-ycoh4plafzfmhhihkwk4o4px2q-story.html You assumed bad faith there. I was simply noting that this does appear to be true, and probably won't go away: it's likely to be considered a notable incident. COVID-19 has created a number of conservative hostages to fortune, and schadenfreude alone is sufficient motivation for journalists to write about them when the inevitable happens. Guy (help!) 12:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Guy, WP:RECENTISM. I've already explained that the sources you mentioned don't cut the mustard. The Chicago Tribune has only passing mention of Montgomery as a co-founder, but most of that article is political and there was nothing about him dying of COVID complications. Furthermore, the echo chamber is spreading information that was provided by 2 friends of Montgomery - no names were given. Where is the high quality medical verification that WP:MEDRS requires, especially concerning this is about cause of death? If this information is notable and verifiable, there would be factual medical evidence in sources that meet our requirements. Why hasn't it been published in The New York Times or even WaPo or did I miss those articles? _Talk 📧 12:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm concerned about this recent addition to the article relating to wearing masks.] I see two issues. First, Politico doesn't support the term "mocking". Politico does say that Kirk/TPUSA opposed masks on civil liberty grounds and questioned their effectiveness for the general population. It also was clear that vonuerable populations should self isolate. This is significant because just saying "mocking" suggests they are claiming the masks do nothing in all circumstances. That isn't what they have said so we shouldn't misrepresent their claims. Second is Business Insider as a source for the mask removal claim. BI is weak in terms of reliability for political topics. The BI doesn't even have a named writer. If one looks at The Week, it says TPUSA deleted a tweet and points to MSN as evidence. The MSN story is actually just a syndication of the same BI story. Thus we ultimately have just one source of questionable reliability for the claim. Guy posted a Chicago Tribune story but that one is from a few months back and can't support the recent addition. While some sources seem to want to play up the emotional laden terms (mocking for example) we should be more precise about what unpopular subjects are actually claiming. TPUSA's claims will likely ultimately be wrong or and over emphasize the minority cases (for example some people do have legitimate medical reasons to avoid masks but I bet the number that think they do is far higher). TPUSA isn't saying "masks never help" so we need to avoid texts that suggests that is their actual message. I think this is a case where those who favor masks find it easier to simply mock and over state the case made by the other side rather than discuss the claims in detail. Sometimes ridicule is more effective than logic. Both sides use it and, sadly, it ends up in Misplaced Pages, often stripped of the original arguments that supported a position. Springee (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I removed the recently added material. It seems the only reason for inclusion was to suggest the organization hypocritically mocked the removed a tweet about wearing masks. The problem is a BI article with no named author is the only source for that claim. Thus, even if true, WEIGHT is a problem. Without that source of controversy the rest of the material doesn't have a purpose. Yes, TPUSA has been critical of mask policies but they have also said elderly and vulnerable should self isolate. It isn't clear how Montgomery caught COVID-19 so we shouldn't allow the article to suggest Montgomery got it by failing to wear a mask. Ultimately it's a POINTy edit made with shaky evidence. Springee (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Motion to demerge Charlie Kirk section to separate article

This is a new discussion to formally nominate TPUSA's Charlie Kirk section to be demerged and given his own article. I do this because the topic presented itself as a possible solution to take away clutter from the TurningPoint article (Turning Point USA) as well as was discussed in a few sections preceding this one but seemed to fall to the wayside with nobody taking appropriate action. I am aware that Charlie Kirk was merged quite some time ago into this TPUSA article under the pretense that Kirk was not notable for any other event other than the formation of Turning Point USA. This reasoning fails now as we all know he passes the main criteria for a stand-alone article via WP:GNG three fold. This topic has been brought up numerous times which goes to show that quite a few editors think he is notable to have his own article. Also at the time of the merge ( over 2 ½ years ago in 2018) it was stated that if the section (Kirk) were to start getting too big it would be prevalent to demerge it. It is quite big and seems to keep getting bigger. Here are some more “Notable things about Kirk”:

- He has one of the most engaged twitter accounts in the world

- He has made Forbes 30 under 30 list in 2018

- Bestselling author

- Editor at large for Newsweek

- Youngest speaker at CPAC

- Regular Columnist for foxnews.com, Breitbart, Washington Times, and The Hill

- Guest Commentator on various media outlets with reportedly over 600 appearances on shows including: CNBC; Fox News; FOX Business News; The Sean Hannity Show (radio); Hannity (TV); Tucker Carlson Tonight (TV); Justice with Judge Jeanine (TV), The Ingraham Angle (TV), Life, Liberty and Levin (TV), The Limbaugh Letter; plus numerous radio and podcast appearances.

As for people who are claiming WP:BIO1E, it specifies that: If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. Also “event” isn’t quite the best descriptor to use to label notoriety in this situation. It makes it sound like a one-time occurrence. He has done all those things I listed and is very relevant in the current political climate.MaximusEditor (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I support a page for Kirk, however I can’t find anything about him being an editor at large for Newsweek nor is it anywhere to be found in the link. As for the rest I think you may be overselling him slightly. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The link is on newsweek.com and shows that he has contributed 41 Opinion articles to date; yes, you are correct, it does not specifically say "editor at large", but that seems to be the most appropriate description of his position at Newsweek . MaximusEditor (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

We don't need to engage in WP:OR about him being an editor at large or not. He is either notable enough for an article or not, a job title doesn't matter. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 10:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

References

1. https://thehill.com/homenews/media/430619-trump-harris-ocasio-cortez-charlie-kirk-among-twitters-most-engaged
2. https://www.forbes.com/pictures/5a036c5f4bbe6f37dda202fd/charlie-kirk-24/#38da1aef1dca
3. https://www.nytimes.com/books/best-sellers/2020/03/21/hardcover-nonfiction/
4. https://www.newsweek.com/authors/charlie-kirk
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/Editor-at-large
6. https://www.quora.com/When-someones-title-is-say-editor-at-large-what-does-the-at-large-part-mean

@MaximusEditor: we don't do motions. We do requests for comment. Doug Weller talk 11:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Articles with connected contributors
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class AfC articles
• AfC submissions by date/10 July 2016
• Accepted AfC submissions
• Start-Class organization articles
• Unknown-importance organization articles
• WikiProject Organizations articles
• Start-Class Conservatism articles
• Low-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• Start-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• Start-Class United Kingdom articles
• Low-importance United Kingdom articles
• WikiProject United Kingdom articles
• Start-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• Start-Class American politics articles
• Low-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press