Talk:Turning Point USA

Bias

The article currently is mostly a left leaning criticism of TPUSA instead of detailing the organization with a well structured paragraph of criticism at the end. (Indeed, the overwhelming left bias of articles, is a broad problem in En Wiki). Tshuva (talk) 10:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

See WP:Criticism sections, this is not a good idea. And of course the WP:LEAD has to summarise the article. Our articles represent what reliable sources have to say about issues, if you find them left wing that's probably more to do with your perception of politics. Doug Weller talk 12:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Since there is a difference of opinion between [User:Tshuva|Tshuva] and Doug Weller; the proper and appropriate solution is to follow the [[WP:Lead] and [[WP:Criticism] guidelines, which clearly define the issues discussed above. [User:Tshuva|Tshuva]'s original point is that the TPUSA article should be a "... well structured paragraph (with) criticism at the end... " After reviewing the article in detail, I believe this comment has merit based on the Wikipedia guidelines. Most of the opening paragraph is reasonable; but the last sentence, although sourced by CBS News, is an opinion and not a fact. What is the name of the organization(s) shunning TPUSA and what spokesperson stated that? None are provided and therefore it does not qualify as a valid source; this would be more appropriate in a criticism section rather than the opening paragraph (which is supposed to have a NPOV). Also, the opening paragraph does not provide a clear, concise description of the organization's purpose and objectives (which is what the typical reader is expecting, based on the [[WP:Lead] guidelines).--MaximusEditor (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

The lede is a summary of the body, and this quote is useful for this purpose. The quote is clearly a third-party summary of the group's status from a reliable and independent outlet, presented with attribution. Further, there is an entire section explaining the group's poor status among conservatives. Nobody is obligated to agree with CBS News, but it is certainly a valid source. You may personally think it's subjective, or incorrect, but that isn't the same thing as an opinion. Grayfell (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah the CBS source can easily be left out of the lead. Serious did you read the source? My favorite part is the end where is says "This event is now over". Some hard hitting news right there. PackMecEng (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with PackMecEng, lets get it off the lede, the CBS article just seems weak after reading it over. Its short, doesnt really back up any claims it makes with facts ( in regards to being "shunned or at least ignored by more established media groups", if you make a claim like that in an article you need to give a reference of what/who). Which is the whole point of a citation is it not? With no facts we are just slapping a CBS citation on the end of a sentence to make it viable in the eyes of Wikipedia. --Eruditess (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I would tend to think that the CBS quote is a reasonable one to have in the lead at this stage of the article's evolution. It seems a reasonable summary of how the group seems to be perceived. There are other articles that could be cited - this Guardian (UK) article for example is much more critical. Or this one from the same source, for example. On the whole I think the CBS one sums things up reasonably succinctly, even though the depth of the actual source may not extend much. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I think one of the points being made is it's not good practice to succinctly summarize an article using a shallow citation source (the CBS article in question). If you google "Turning Point USA" and the word "shunned" you get this wikipedia article and next the CBS article, no where in the next subsequent relevant results is the word "shunned" found, that's not a good search response for people defending that it summarizes the organization, I reviewed those 2 other sources you put, one is about Turning Point UK (which is different the Turning Point USA) and an article about Candace Owens "defending Hitler" which I think is taken out of context obviously ( Here is an RS article of her clarifying those comments Article Link, and even then Candace Owens is no longer with Turning Point USA. I am going to have to say it seems biased and should be removed. --TomaHawk61 (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph

From my perspective, the lead paragraph lacks a basic a description of TPUSA’s mission and does not provide the Reader with “…the basics in a nutshell …” per [[WP:Lead] guidelines. Reviewing this Politico article, which is cited five times, states that TPUSA’s mission is to "identify, educate, train and organize students to promote the principles of fiscal responsibility, free markets and limited government." Adding this to the Body of the article and the lead paragraph will give this an NPOV for all readers.MaximusEditor (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

it's been a week with no comments; ready to add this as the second sentence in the Lead Paragraph: "TPUSA's mission statement is to identify, educate, train and organize students to promote the principles of fiscal responsibility, free markets and limited government." citing this Politico Article -- MaximusEditor (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 08:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

"Pro-military and pro-police"

Just in case TheSLEEVEmonkey's and my own edit summaries weren't clear what the problem was, the article cited did not use these terms – searching the article for them was the first thing I did. Their use here clearly derives from a non-neutral interpretation of that cited article, and such use implies, in Wikipedia's voice (this is the important part), that the groups and individuals against whom TPUSA stands in opposition are "anti-military" and "anti-police". If Turning Point USA wishes to describe itself that way, though, then sure – that can be mentioned. But make sure such descriptors are attributed to the groups or individuals using them. WP Ludicer (talk) 05:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Two more sources

Benny Johnson Delighted by All the White Faces at Turning Point USA Event (shortly after he was appointed) and [1] which has an interesting take on its possible goals. Doug Weller talk 16:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)