This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lukacris (talk | contribs) at 23:39, 9 January 2018 (→Allegations of Racism Do Not (Yet) Belong in Lede). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:39, 9 January 2018 by Lukacris (talk | contribs) (→Allegations of Racism Do Not (Yet) Belong in Lede)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Articles for creation Start‑class | ||||||||||
|
Organizations Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
Conservatism Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
United States Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
Copyright violations
The "About the Founder" and parts of "In the Media" appear to be copied from the copyrighted page:
http://turningpointusa.net/boardofdirectors/
--NapoliRoma (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Controversy over controversial controversy claim in "Controversy" section
This edit removed a large section of well sourced text reading: "First appearing on November 21st, 2016, Turning Point USA also operates a website called Professor Watchlist in order to 'expose and document college professors who discriminate against conservative students, promote anti-American values, and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom.' The website lists academics who “promote anti-American, leftwing propaganda in the classroom” according to a blog post by Charlie Kirk. Tips are accepted from the public, and over 200 professors are currently listed. The website has been criticized as racist and pro-fascist, using surveillance type propaganda to manipulate ideas of truth, equality, and freedom."
The removal was explained as "I removed content that contained false information and also no indication that anything was controversial about the idea discussed."
The editor is not clear about what they feel is "false information" and everything is quite well sourced. The section did not say anything was controversial about the "idea". Rather, it said there has been controversy: Turning Point (obviously) thinks the project is a good idea, others -- as sourced -- have criticized it. That is the essence of controversy. - SummerPhD 05:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
References
- About, Turning Point USA, 2016, retrieved 21 November 2016
- Kirk, Charlie (2016-11-21). "It's time we expose professors pushing agendas in their classroom". Retrieved 2016-12-02.
- Sidahmed, Mazin (2016-12-02). "Professor Watchlist website elicits both fear and ridicule in US universities". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2016-12-02.
- Mele, Christopher (28 November 2016), Professor Watchlist Is Seen as Threat to Academic Freedom, The New York Times, retrieved 28 November 2016
{{citation}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help) - Schuman, Rebecca (23 November 2016), Oh Good, a “Professor Watch List”, Slate, retrieved 28 November 2016
{{citation}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help) - Flaherty, Colleen (22 November 2016), Being Watched, Inside Higher Ed, retrieved 28 November 2016
Proposed merge with Hypeline News
No signs of notability of Hypeline News independent of Turning Point USA, and half of the content in Hypeline News is a quotation from their website and doesn't really belong anyway. So, a merger would be essentially an acknowledgement at Turning Point USA that Hypeline News exists. Largoplazo (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Move. Zero notability beyond the affiliation with Turning Point USA. JSFarman (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- I decided to be bold and I just turned Hypeline into a redirect to TPUSA. JSFarman (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Clean-Up
I've gone ahead and cleaned up the article. The basic changes include:
- I removed a lot of redundant facts stated in the article's lead that are repeated in the body
- Removed a lot of excessive facts about Charlie Kirk that are already on his page (we don't need two Charlie Kirk articles)
- Restructured the controversy section and condensed the sections concerning affiliated groups and individuals (we don't need each sentence to have its own break in-between).
- Removed the "In the Media" section, because quite frankly, this section - while well-sourced - boiled down to just a collection of interviews with Charlie Kirk; again, extremely redundant and somewhat self-promoting (better fit for his article).
- As per the above section detailing how the article for Hypeline News has since been deleted and turned into a redirect for TPUSA, there's really no reason for the bit in the lead about Hypeline since it's just another project of TPUSA that's not nearly as noteworthy as, say, the Professor Watchlist. There's also the fact that the one and only source for the bit about Hypeline was from Hypeline itself - once more, very self-promoting.
104.52.53.152 (talk) 01:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
"has been described as an alt-right organization" in Lead
The two reliable sources cited, New Republic and The Daily Dot, do not describe the organization as alt-right. The only sources cited that support that claim are "SocialistWorker.org" and "AcadaDemeBlog", neither of which are WP:RS. This line is not supported and should be removed from the Lead. Marquis de Faux (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Allegations of Racism Do Not (Yet) Belong in Lede
The racism allegations against Turning Point USA do not belong in the lede of this article because they are not yet reliably substantiated nor have they been shown to have impacted the organization to a degree meriting the info's position at the top of the article. The existing source for these allegations cite (1) a recently fired employee and (2) an unnamed source. There can be a section in the article about the issue, but it is neither reliable nor impactful enough to rise to the lede. It's inclusion right now is flippant to the seriousness of the allegation and disingenuous about its veracity.
To include in lede, one of these things (or something like it) should first occur: (a) accusations are filed in a non-frivilous civil suit; (b) Turning Point confirms the allegations; or (c) the allegations have a significant and lasting effect on the organization.
(the article cited: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/a-conservative-nonprofit-that-seeks-to-transform-college-campuses-faces-allegations-of-racial-bias-and-illegal-campaign-activity) Lukacris (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- That isn't a standard adopted by the community as far as I know. The relevant guideline is WP:LEAD--which only says that the lead should summarize the subject's most important points. An unsubstantiated, unimpactful allegation can certainly be one of its most important points, especially if it received widespread media attention. In this case, the story was covered not only by The New Yorker but also by other reliable sources such as The Daily Beast, The Hill, and Newsweek. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- I simply don't understand your point that something can be "one of its most important points" if it is also unimpactful and unsubstantiated. We should be mindful of the political nature of this organization that tends to motivate a degree of news coverage out of whack with what's really there. Also, right-wing groups get smeared as racist on a fairly regular basis. I bring this up because the number of publications that ran with this story does not necessary bear on the accusations' veracity or impact. More news stories with the same suspect sourcing don't help. Now, if these poorly-sourced news stories have a palpable effect on the organization rising to the level of being "one of most important points," then it should go in the lede-- this is not the case. If the accusations were themselves more reliable, that might also qualify it for lede.
If I publicly accused Meryl Streep of animal sacrifice and media outlets ran with my accusations (without reliable corroboration), then it wouldn't belong in her lede. Lukacris (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Categories:- Start-Class AfC articles
- AfC submissions by date/10 July 2016
- Accepted AfC submissions
- Unassessed organization articles
- Unknown-importance organization articles
- WikiProject Organizations articles
- Unassessed Conservatism articles
- Unknown-importance Conservatism articles
- WikiProject Conservatism articles
- Unassessed United States articles
- Unknown-importance United States articles
- Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
- WikiProject United States articles