Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:49, 4 October 2020

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 12 April 2017 by reviewer JSFarman (talk · contribs). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography 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. Higher education This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Misplaced Pages. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education 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.

AFD?

Hello. Was there an AFD leading up to the merge please? I see a lot of edit-warring in the history of this page. Please ping me when you reply--I'd like to see the AFD. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

why does Charlie Kirk not have his own page

far past time imo MB298 (talk) 03:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Completing the Split and Updating the Article

Now that the Charlie Kirk article has been split from the Turning Point USA article; I was in the process of adding all of the missing, non-TPUSA information that is relevant and notable to Charlie Kirk but was not part of the TPUSA article split. This has been reverted for WP:PEACOCK and "Misplaced Pages isn't a platform for public relations" by grayfell; I will be reviewing the material in question for "too many peacock" words and re-submitting where appropriate. I do believe that the material inserted was notable and improves the content and integrity of the article, it just needs to be cleaned up. MaximusEditor (talk) 06:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

That NY Times best seller: Maga doctrine debuted at #5 on March 22, 2020, with the dagger symbol ("A dagger indicates that some retailers report receiving bulk orders"), dropped to #14 the next week (still with the dagger symbol), and was gone the next week. Last fall, Turning Point purchased about 2,000 copies of Mr. Trump’s book, “Triggered: How the Left Thrives on Hate and Wants to Silence Us,” helping push it up best-seller lists. What are the odds that something similar took place this year or that someone returned the favor? Just saying that if you mention the NY Times best seller status you also need to mention the dagger caveat (IMO). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The titles seem to have come straight from Kirk's own website. Editor-at-large at Newsweek - that just means that Newsweek publishes his opinions (Charlie Kirk is the founder and executive director of Turning Point Action, an advocacy group for young conservatives. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.. Columnist + guest commentator - written + spoken opinion, in his case mostly for right-wing to far-right outlets. Social media influencer - I associate influencer with people on YouTube promoting products for clicks and getting paid for those clicks. Does not seem to apply to him. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Home value

Does the vaule of his home have encyclopedic value? I removed it here and Drmies restored it here. Normally trivia like that is not included in articles. What does since he works for a highly political non-profit allied to the president, this is kind of interesting have to do with anything? PackMecEng (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Well, it's not trivial if it's one of the focal points of an investigation into his rise to wealth. So yeah, that has everything to do with it--at least according to ProPublica, which is a reliable source for investigative journalism. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • So the value and location of his condo speaks to his conservative activism? No I don't think so. We don't do that here since it is clearly not encyclopedic it is just shitty writing. Also yeah not a main focal point of that source. This is not the dumping ground of every piece of verifiable useless trivia. Finally please follow onus and BRD and self revert. PackMecEng (talk) 16:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Hmm you were right--that was not great writing. I hope you like the new version better. BTW "shitty writing" (hmm...) is not a ground for declaring something unenyclopedic. Also, your response is not as carefully written as I am used to from you. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Shitty writing was a side note for all the other points I made that you ignored. Also since when have I had careful writing? Perhaps you are thinking of someone else. Still worthless noting the home value other than to make an implication the source does not make. Why do that? Finally please follow onus and BRD and self revert. It is just good practice, you know better. PackMecEng (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
        • You're probably the only reader who doesn't find that "implication" in that article. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
          • You didn't really read the assignment did you? I mean the whole part about his salary and home purchase were outside the investigation and just passing mention. In fact if you actually want to use the info and put it in context it would be following the success of Turning Point in general. Finally please follow onus and BRD and self revert. I had hoped for more from you on this, you always used to be a lot more reasonable. PackMecEng (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
            • PackMecEng, maybe I just got old, or I no longer have the patience to deal with this silliness. "You didn't really read the assignment didn't you"--that's Instagram talk. I remember you being a careful editor, not outright hostile like this. Drmies (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
              • No hostility here, so not sure what you mean. Regardless, several comments you have made here so far have included personal commentary. Don't do that, please keep things focused on content and not the contributor. Thanks. PackMecEng (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Passing mention of a big jump in income coincidental to signing off on possibly fraudulent federal tax returns? The current wording sounds NPOV to me. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The issue is a few things. The current wording makes it seem like an official or criminal investigation vs one from ProPublica. Second it explains the salary increase comes from the foundation doing well in part because of the backing of Trump and not necessarily because of anything fraudulent. Third, the quote in the article misleading financial claims is a claim made in the headline which runs afoul of the recent RFC. The more I re-read the source the more it looks like a guilt by association setup. PackMecEng (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The body of the article mentions questionable financial arrangements and misleading assertions about its finances to state and federal regulators, so it's not just the headline. And the association is Kirk having signed the tax returns: The IRS requires, under the penalty of perjury, that charities attest whether they received an independent audit. Both Kirk and the co-founder have signed off on Turning Point’s filings. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes but our article is using "" around it, making it sound like a quote from the source when it is a quote from the headline. Also again the source does not say or imply the increase in salary is from questionable financial arrangements, it explicitly states where it is from. So the implication is incorrect and unrelated to the possible IRS issues. The IRS thing is separate and could warrant something on its own, but again it is just a source speculating on criminal activity. Is this one source enough when nothing legally has happened to imply criminal claims against Kirk? PackMecEng (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The article is a work in progress. Seems legit to me for Kirk's bio to mention the big salary increase, the expensive condo, and the reported dubious financial dealings at the business Kirk is heading, 'though maybe not in the same sentence or in a section called conservative activism. Since editor MaximusEditor is planning an overhaul, let's see where that goes. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Kirk's family and official name

From 2012 to 2018, Montgomery kept the books and records of TPUSA, and he signed the tax returns for the tax years until June 30, 2016, which list "Charlie Kirk" as the president of the company. The tax return for the tax year beginning on July 1, 2016, and ending on June 30, 2017, was submitted to the IRS in 2019 (Form 990-T, Form 990). Kirk is listed as the principal officer and keeper of Turning Point’s books and records. He is also the person who signed the tax return Charles Kirk, so that indicates that Charles is his first name. Going to the White Pages, I found several Kirks (no James T., I'm happy to note) listed with an address at 418 Cherry Creek Lane, Prospect Heights, IL, one of whom, Charles J. ("Age 20s") also has an address on Longboat Key, FL, where Charlie Kirk reportedly bought an $855,000 condo. Is "Charlie Kirk" Charles J. Kirk, son of Robert W. Kirk, architect, and Kathryn Smith Kirk, esoteric writer? Is this SYNTH or not? It's material published in the real world. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The International Business Times reported in 2017 that Kirk’s father "allegedly" was Robert W. Kirk, whose profile on his Group A Architects website, founded as Kirk+Partners in 1985, said until 2017 that he was project architect for Trump Tower, NYC. The website appears to have been scrubbed of the categories awards, articles, and principles in 2018. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Article Organization

After splitting Charlie Kirk out of the TPUSA page; the next step was to add Kirk’s non-TPUSA information, but organizing the information into several incremental edits triggered a revert for WP:PEACOCK and fluffery. Clearly having two sections (Early life and education & Conservative activism) is not sufficient to cover the broad range of topics and the article can be greatly improved by organizing the information into logical sections. So in keeping with updating the article and "depuffing" it, lets start from the very top, sections. My thoughts for an outline:

1) Early Life and Education

2) Career

2.1) Turning Point USA

2.2)Turning Point Action & Students for Trump

2.3) Media

2.4.1) Books

2.4.2) Columnist

2.4.3) Social Media

2.4.4) Television & Radio

3) Conservative Activism

4) Controversies

5) References

Space4Time3Continuum2x, what are your thoughts on this, as you are helping tremendously co-edit this new article. MaximusEditor (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The big problem I see is that conservative activism and Turning Point USA (and that includes TPA and Students for Trump) is his career. Without TPUSA he wouldn't have a social media following, and he wouldn't get to opine in print, on TV/radio, and in books. We don't know really know much more about him than what he's said in interviews or put on his/TPUSA's website. We need reliable sources but so far I haven't come across much. See also my other edits on this Talk page. I won't have a lot of time this week and may not respond quickly. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, I see your point, yes, Conservative Activism can be perceived as a common theme in those categories, but I also think that Conservative Activism is a category in itself. If the consensus is to change Career to Conservative Activism, then we can change the Conservative Activism section to be Political View. So the outline will look like this:

1) Early Life and Education

2) Conservative Activism

2.1) Turning Point USA

2.2) Turning Point Action & Students for Trump

2.3) Media

2.3.1) Books

2.3.2) Columnist

2.3.3) Social Media

2.3.4) Television & Radio

3) Political Views

3.1) Covid-19

3.2) Voter Fraud

4) Controversies

5) References

I think this is a significant improvement over the current format of the article. MaximusEditor (talk) 04:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

It's an improvement if you can fill all those categories with reliably sourced material. That includes negative material like the NYT article you just agreed to remove from the article. I've just searched for recent mentions in RS, and I haven't found any later than the ones mentioning that he was a speaker at the Republican convention. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x He didn't agree to remove the NYT article. He just agreed to remove one biased quote from the lead that served no purpose. That NYT article is used like 7 or 8 times throughout this short bio--seems a bit redundant to me. And in case you haven't noticed, 95% of this bio is filled with "negative material." Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

("He?") The unfortunate fact is that the reliably sourced material on Kirk is negative, and there isn't that much of it. He's mostly engaged in his right-wing bubble or debating left-wing media like TYT at bubble venues like Politicon where he's "destroying" them or they are "destroying" him, depending on which side you are listening to. As for your deletion, Kirk did lie about life expectancy in Cuba being 15 years lower than in the U.S. (there's video at 13.14) and the life expectancy in Cuba is slightly higher), Oberlo does say that small businesses account for 98.2 percent of employment. Looking for RS that covered this event (Wonkette, so far). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

1.) I'm obviously referring to MaximusEditor (I'm honestly not sure if you're accusing me of not respecting pronouns or you genuinely didn't know who I was referring to). 2.) I thought I was automatically allowed to delete that quote since no RS was used and thus it's a BLP violation. If I'm wrong on that--my apologies. 3) As you know, Oberlo (a self-published blog) and a Youtube video are not WP:RSPSOURCES. I highly doubt you will be able to find a RS that fact-checked every claim at some random clickbait 'debate' at Politicon. 4.) At least you acknowledged that the majority of mainstream coverage of Kirk is heavily slanted. This article is really weird: just two sections and the "Conservative activism" section is just filled with instances where Kirk said something untruthful or misleading. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 09:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Remove Last Line in Lead

Let's remove "According to the New York Times, Kirk's rhetoric " the line between mainstream conservative opinion and outright disinformation."" It's vague and could possibly be WP:CHERRYPICKING. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 09:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Definitely agree, serves no purpose to the reader and is WP:CHERRYPICKING, I'll remove it soon. MaximusEditor (talk) 22:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The NYT article isn't vague at all, it gives numerous examples of the disinformation Kirk has been spreading and that quote sums them up. Nevertheless, I moved it from the lead into the body of the article, along with the mention of the book. 09:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk)

Questionable source/misrepresenting quote?

We may need to remove "Kirk promotes the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory through Turning Point USA and Turning Point UK and has said they are working to 'combat it' in universities...". . The two sources are student newspapers, and the first one is an opinion piece (I think student newspapers are generally ok to use as per WP:RSSM, but it's better to use a professional source).

However, in the second source used (i.e, https://cherwell.org/2019/02/17/turning-point-uks-launch-marred-by-parody-accounts/) George Farmer is the only who describes Turning Point USA's "main objective as combatting ‘cultural Marxism.’"--not Kirk. In the next two lines it states: "Asked to elaborate on the term ‘cultural Marxism’, Mcilhiney backtracked on Farmer’s statement, telling Cherwell: “What we are saying is that there’s a shift in the cultural zeitgeist and the cultural mind towards the left. “We have recognised that the terminology of cultural Marxism has some difficult origins, so from now on I think we’ll stay away from the use of that.”. So, it seems as though Kirk was not the one who said he or Turning Point are 'combatting' Cultural Marxism. And it seems that Turning Point, in general, no longer use that term. As such, this could possibly be a WP:QUOTE, WP:NPOV, or WP:BLP violation. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 01:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

1. https://www.varsity.co.uk/opinion/17125
2. https://cherwell.org/2019/02/17/turning-point-uks-launch-marred-by-parody-accounts/

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class AfC articles
• AfC submissions by date/12 April 2017
• Accepted AfC submissions
• C-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class Higher education articles
• WikiProject Higher education articles
• C-Class Conservatism articles
• Low-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles