Talk:Turning Point USA

Charter buses

On January 4, 2021, Kirk announced that Turning Point would be sending more than 80 buses to a January 6, 2021, Trump rally near the White House in Washington, D.C, to protest the outcome of the election. They sent seven buses with approximately 350 participants.

This number of buses seems really low compared to other sources, some of which say TPUSA sent between 80-100 buses full of people. There’s also eyewitness reports of people who lived in the neighborhoods where the buses parked. Not sure what the actual numbers are here. Viriditas (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

A spokesman said that Kirk eventually sent a half-dozen buses, per the WaPo source in the article. There were other organized groups who also sent buses to D.C. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

"80-100 buses full of people"

This is obviously total nonsense and of course lacks any reliable source. 82.38.214.252 (talk) 07:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Turning Point paying Guilfoyle's speaker's fee at January 6, 2021, rally

Re this revert: Both RS point out that Turning Point Action is an affiliate of Turning Point USA, that both are run by Charlie Kirk, and that Kirk is a friend of Guilfoyle's fiance, Donald Trump, Jr. Also, the links on March to Save America's website, both before ("Turning Point USA Action") and after the change of the header ("Turning Point Action") go to Turning Point USA's website ("SHOP, DONATE, JOIN"). Turning Point Action, a 501(c)(4) organization and an affiliate of the better-known Turning Point USA, a 501(c)(3). The difference is that Turning Point Action has more leeway to engage in political activity Arguably it can go into the Turning_Point_USA#Turning_Point_Action section but IMO it needs to stay in the Turning_Point_USA#2021_United_States_Capitol_attack section as one of the events leading up to the riot. Additional mention on Kirk's and TP Action's page, fine, but it needs to be mentioned on this page, too. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Space4Time3Continuum2x, I don’t think the focus should be on adding the information on Guilfoyle back in, (although it absolutely shouldn’t be). But rather that this section (2021 Capitol attack) as a whole is highly problematic for a number of reasons. It absolutely fails several Wikipedia policies and needs to be completely removed – there is no WP:RS that specifically states that TPUSA was involved in any aspect of January 6th and using Wikipedia’s voice to indicate that there was is not only slanderous but a clear violation of WP:SYNTHESIS.

In fact, two of the sources (The Daily Dot & Newsweek)used in that section as citations actually printed retractions:

 ”Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly referred to Turning Point USA (TPUSA) instead of Turning Point Action (TPA).”

As discussed on your talk page previously, Turning Point specifically created two organizations, one that is prohibited from “supporting a political candidate” and one that is “allowed to participate in politics” – why would Turning Point use TPUSA to intentionally violate 501(c)(3) regulations when they can use TPAction and be in complete compliance?

There is absolutely no WP:RS specifically stating that TPUSA was involved in January 6th; common sense infers that “Turning Point” in a political situation refers to “TPAction” and not “TPUSA”.

Assuming that the WP:RS is referring to TPUSA is an extreme, illogical, and unsubstantiated position; adding January 6th to the TPUSA article is using the Wikipedia voice to indicate that TPUSA is violating their 501(c)(3) regulations when there is absolutely no WP:RS that states that.

You have stated that your position is to keep things that are reported under Turning Point Action on this page. You stated you do so because you believe that TPUSA and TP-ACTION have the same leadership and personnel, therefore must be treated as a single entity. Where is the reliable source that states that? I mean I understand that Charlie Kirk is involved with both but is there some outlet stating that the two separate organizations share personnel? I don’t think there is. To assume so is WP:OR.

The reality of the situation is, there is a Turning Point Action page that exists. That is where information like this belongs. Period. Take it there, keep it there. Having it here is misleading and wrong. No matter how you try to rationalize it. MaximusEditor (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• It’s two sentences, hardly too much detail for the top "Turning Point" article. (I’m still of the opinion that Turning Point Action shouldn’t have been spun off to an article that’s hardly more than a stub and likely to remain that way.) Turning Point USA sends students to D.C. for January 6, in buses paid for by Turning Point Action. Turning Point USA hosts the annual Student Action Summit, and you can register (and donate) for it on TPUSA's web page (archived) as well as on TP Action's web page (last archived before DeSantis was added to the list of speakers). The group, which has non-profit charity status that bars political work, also has a political arm called Turning Point Action that can do election work. (Guardian) They're both nonprofits; in two years or so we’ll find out who paid the speaker fees for Trump, DeSantis, Trump Jr., and Guilfoyle. And, since they're both nonprofits, their officers, directors, and top employees are a matter of public record. Both list Kirk, Sodeika, and Bowyer. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

RFC on moving non related content out to its source article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should Turning Point Action content (that is independent of Turning Point USA) be moved from the Turning Point USA article over to the Turning Point Action page –- support or oppose? MaximusEditor (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Strongly Support – Charlie Kirk specifically created two organizations; Turning Point Action (a 501(c)(4) nonprofit that is permitted to participate in political activities) and Turning Point USA (a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that is not permitted to participate in political activities). Posting TPAction political activities on the TPUSA article uses the Wikipedia WP:VOICE to imply that TPUSA is operating outside of their 501(c)(3) regulations. This creates blatant WP:BLPGROUP & WP:REDFLAG issues.

Now for any information that WP:RS say Turning Point Action is linked to Turning Point USA, keep it in the article. I think that’s fair. Keep what is linked in rs citations, and take out what is not. But to be fair you can’t use WP:SYNTH or WP:OR or a mix of both to rationalize keeping erroneous information in the article. That’s why I created this RFC, there is a history of editors (self admitting) to keeping information pertaining solely to Turning Point Action on TPUSA’s page. These editors “feel” obligation to group them under the same umbrella, because they share three common employees out of what hundreds (Still want to see the RS stating that)? If you want to keep material in this article, WP:BURDEN falls on you, please find RS stating specifics, not WP:SYNTH. - MaximusEditor (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Turning Point Action is an organization founded by the Turning Point USA founder that uses marketing and branding styles common with Turning Point USA, per sources. A brief description of what Turning Point Action is about and what it does, along with a "main template" towards the Turning Point Action article, would be sufficient. Which, as it happens, is the exact status we have today. Turning Point USA has created what are essentially unofficial subsidiaries. -The Gnome (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
• This is a WP:SPLIT matter, not an RfC matter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  I also agree that this is a WP:SIZESPLIT issue. As it stands Turning Point USA page is, 105,147 bytes. Under SizeSplit rule of thumb it says this about article size:

  " > 100kb Almost certainly should be divided"

  With regard to not an RFC Matter - the intent of the RFC is to remove content from the article that is not relevant to TPUSA but should be included in the TPAction article. MaximusEditor (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Given that there is a Turning Point Action page, activities by TPA should be there, not here. Springee (talk)

I'm surely missing something, again. An article about subect A quite often contains information also about related subjects B, C, D, etc. That information, sometimes, when B or C are important enough to have their own, separate article, comes with the tag "See main article...". I thought it was common practice to have both the main article on B and a shorter presentation of B within the context of article A. Here we have a bona fide subsidiary. -The Gnome (talk) 09:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is arguing that content related between subject A & subject B should be removed. The intent of the RFC is to remove content that is independent (meaning, content that does not directly include the organization) / irrelevant to the entity that has the edit. But to relate subject A and subject B in a manner that isn't stated in WP:RS would be WP:SYNTH and also breaching WP:OR; especially when the content is not permitted under the Charter regulations of the organization (which uses the Wikipedia voice to imply the organization is operating contrary to it's legal requirements). MaximusEditor (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

That is not what your RfC is about. The RfC is not about text not based on sources, since, in that case, no RfC is needed: the baseless text is simply and swiftly defenestrated. -The Gnome (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Turning Point Action is a little-known 501(c)(4) affiliate of Turning Point USA, a 501(c)(3), run by the same people. It is often not possible to distinguish between the activities of the two because they overlap in time and place and people, with Kirk running the show. As the Gnome already pointed out, the status we have today is sufficient. (BTW, this is not an RfC, it's a discussion on a talk page.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x , you say: It is often not possible to distinguish between the activities of the two because they overlap in time and place and people, with Kirk running the show. This is your reasoning and justification for keeping material not associated with Turning Point USA specifically on the page? We are Wikipedia editors, we are just suppose to publish what the reliable sources report. I think when you start to decide "what is hard to distinguish" , that falls under WP:OR. Turning Point Action can not be "little known organization", how is it that they have enough WP:SIGCOV to create an article? This is because they are well known, the media has enough material published to have their own page, but only if we can start organizing the information and putting it where it belongs instead of dumping the information on this page. Eruditess (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support - I think that the rules are pretty clear. If WP:RS mentions Turning Point USA as well as Turning Point Action in the same article, both relating to a singular topic, you can cover it on both article pages. If there is content on this page outlining Turning Point Action alone, with no mention/connection to Turning Point USA, then it absolutely does not belong on this page. To condone that it should be on this page sets a really bad precedence for all of Wikipedia. Eruditess (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mission statement

I WP:BOLDly moved group's own mission statement out of the first sentence and into the history section, so the first sentence is now closer to how it appeared in this article in July 2022. Although some cited RS mention the mission statement, none use it in their first sentence and few use it prominently, so per MOS:LEADREL and WP:INDY, Wikipedia should stick to the third-party sources' words. The unofficial WP:MISSION essay gives other reasons not to emphasize mission statements, notably so that the article does not appear unduly promotional. Llll5032 (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

White supremacy

The talk page editors above are absolutely right, this group is a mix of the KKK/ISIS/IDF, all far-right religiously patriarchal white supremacist terrorist groups. This is not meant to be an anti-white poster. This is to spread the word. Mizzou will not kick out a member threatening to kill Black students. TPUSA is a terrorist org, and so are a portion of its members.

https://kansascitydefender.com/justice/white-mizzou-student-racism-kill-n-word/ 2600:1012:B061:9148:1D4C:C9D1:6729:2E3 (talk) 05:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, there's more!!

> Miller is President of University of Missouri’s white supremacist, right-wing extremist organization, Turning Point USA. Turning Point USA spreads the same “Great Replacement” extremist ideology that was included in the manifesto of the Buffalo Mass Killer, who massacred 10 Black people at a grocery store in Western New York earlier this year.

2600:1012:B061:9148:1D4C:C9D1:6729:2E3 (talk) 05:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I think these prior statements are dated, per WP:RECENTISM. She is no longer President of the Mizzou TPUSA local chapter according to WP:RS ( link here & here as well). There is also RS outlining TPUSA condoning her own action to remove herself from any furthermore involvement in the local chapter and publicly stating that the language she used has no place within the organization. - MaximusEditor (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Far-right

[https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/06/us/politics/republicans-young-voters.html {New York Times)] [https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2022/11/10/dark-maga-hard-right-despair-after-red-trickle-election (SPLC last November)][https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2022/10/20/far-right-student-organization-brings-extremists-mcinnes-doyle-penn-state-and-tennessee (SPLC last October)]. I'm sure there are more sources. Yet no mention anywhere that TPUSA has been described as far-right. Doug Weller talk 12:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

A sentence that surveys the various ideological descriptions of TPUSA by RS would be a good addition. Llll5032 (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

We should be careful with listing descriptors. We should show, not tell when it comes to these things. We also have to be careful that we aren't cherry picking vs showing very common descriptors. If 50% of sources say X then we should. If 5% say X then perhaps they aren't writing objectively. I would be extremely reluctant to use descriptors from the SPLC given their non-objectivity and some of their other recent issues. Perhaps using them for hard facts but using them for subjective descriptions seems problematic. Springee (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

A neutral measure could be to count descriptors from only WP:GREL sources and include some academic and book sources if they are available. Llll5032 (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Llll5032, I am a bit confused by your comment:

"A sentence that surveys the various ideological descriptions of TPUSA by RS would be a good addition."

I just read your good faith talk page post about removing the mission of Turning Point USA. I have some issues with your logic. I do understand that with most corporations or companies a mission (statement) is self serving and/or promotional. Therefore I understand the policies (Such as the unofficial WP:MISSION essay) put in place to deter writing articles in such a way. However, I would disagree with your statement that the WP:RS citing the mission of Turning Point USA are not used prominently. It is used in several Reliable Sources as a descriptor to do exactly what you ask for in your comment. "Outline the various ideologies of Turning Point USA". If it were solely a WP:PRIMARY sourcing from their website, I could understand, but almost every instance of an article mentioning Turning Point, they follow it up with their mission as a descriptor. Why is it that so many reliable sources describe Turning Point USA by mentioning their mission, yet you find it wrong that a wikipedia article does so as well? I am going to have to invoke WP:COMMON. The sentence you removed-

" Turning Point is an American conservative nonprofit organization that advocates to identify, educate, train, and organize students to “promote the principles of freedom, free markets, and limited government."

does not have any sort of promotion or self serving aspects. Please reinstate the mission into the lead, I see no legitimate reason why it shouldn't be there and it literally answers your call for a ideological description using WP:RS citation/information. - MaximusEditor (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:INDY we prioritize third-party descriptions instead of self-descriptions, to "build non-promotional articles that fairly portray the subject, without undue attention to the subject's own views". A fair approach could be to compare the group's description of itself (which, as you and I wrote, was cited in some sources), with other descriptions by independent sources. The mission statement is currently in the history section (where I moved it; I did not remove it), and perhaps some of the third-party descriptors could be surveyed there also, or perhaps they could all be compared somewhere in the top section. Llll5032 (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

There should be no problem in using the SPLC's opinion so long as it is attributed. Having a bias isn't a problem, we allow bias and an anti-hate bias isn't a bad thing. We use it frequently in the lead of articles. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources does say its inclusion in the lead should not be automatic but done on a case by case basis, which is fine by me, but the SPLC should definitely be used in the article somewhere. Doug Weller talk 11:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Description of Jack Posobiec

Nomoskedasticity, please do not restore[1] a contested change without getting consensus first. The description here should be IMPARTIAL which the version you restored is not and is new to the article. Please self revert. Springee (talk) 12:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

As the Jack Posobiec article makes plainly evident, the description is in no way "partial". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

That is why we provide a link to the article where the justification of the contentious label is shown. Since we don't do that in this article we should stick with the long standing version which uses descriptors that don't have a contentious LABEL issue. Also, since this is a newly made change and it has been contested the correct process (see BRD) is to discuss the change, not make it again without discussion. Again, please self revert. Springee (talk) 12:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, one additional note, per the notice at the top of the page, you needed to discuss your change before making it thus you are in violation of the page rules. Again, please self revert. Springee (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

In any case surely this is easily fixed by adding sources from his article? Doug Weller talk 15:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

If we are going to pick labels why pick that one? Per IMPARTIAL shouldn't we pick labels without so much loading, that is the one that has been on the article for a while? Why pick the most contentious? Springee (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The previous edit was WP:IMPARTIAL, it didn't use contentious labeling. @Nomoskedasticity please revert back to the impartial phrasing. MaximusEditor (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

That is not helpful. If and when those sources fail to make a connection between Posobiec and Turning Point USA, you're citing them out of context and thus committing original research. Politrukki (talk) 09:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The sources don't fail [2] to make the connection. Llll5032 (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I've added references, as suggested by Doug Weller. This argument about "impartial" -- it's bogus and I suspect even those making it know why. The description would be "partial" if there was any serious dispute about whether Posobiec is a conspiracy theorist; given dispute, we would be wrong to take sides via use of the description. But there isn't -- he's a conspiracy theorist. I won't do other editors the disservice of imagining that they believe otherwise. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

You are violating NOCON by making this change without a consensus. Did you check to see if there was prior consensus before you made the change? As to your argument, why did you decide that particular descriptor was the valid one to use rather than a different one from the opening of his BLP? Do you think using a contentious label is more impartial than using one that isn't contentious? Springee (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

It also appears that all of the sources you added predate the TPUSA announcement. Springee (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The description appears to be easily the most common one that reliable sources use for Posobiec. Springee, hypothetically, can you describe what kind of source you would not object to for the claim? Llll5032 (talk) 06:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

(Courtesy ping for Springee.) Llll5032 (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

In doing a quick google news review of the first two pages of hits it I found examples of it but I also found other sources including CNN and the NTY that didn't use the term. An NPR article talking about conspiracy theories related to Jeffrey Epstein described Posobiec as a "far-right internet personality". They didn't say he was a conspiracy theorist. This really gets back to a BLP concern I have (and perhaps this should be raised at BLPN). When an article mentions a BLP subject tangentially, without any great detail, what limitations should we have on the labels we apply in that case? In general these labels are something I think we should really avoid in almost all cases. My view is encyclopedic writing should tell, not label. But beyond that, in a case like this there isn't much substance in this article to support the label (in fact there was none). Also consider that a number of labels have been used to describe Posobiec. Why do we pick one vs another? Why isn't his roll as an internet pundit the one we pick? Internet pundit at least is an impartial label. It has no serious baggage that needs to be defended or justified. It's not like we are hiding the details, they are in Posobiec's article. I guess another argument against using conspiracy theorist is it can imply why he was hired. Consider if we have a news station that is hiring someone who as done sports casting and the weather. The new job is for a weatherman. If we said News 5 hired a new sports caster (factually true based on his prior work) it might imply he was hired to be a sports caster, not a weatherman. Are we going to claim Posobiec was hired to be a conspiracy theorist? Did the sources say that was why he was hired? Springee (talk) 03:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

He was cited as collaborating on the television show (already included in this article) but no other reasons for the hiring were given by RS. Springee, in your review of Google News results, did you see any of his attributes that were described with equal or more frequency than his promotion of conspiracy theories? Llll5032 (talk) 03:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Conservative, far-right (also a potential label issue), commentator, influencer were all in there. Even if conspiracy theorist were the most common, if it were in say only 20% then I would still say we shouldn't use it in a case like this where it's not clearly relevant to why he was hired nor is it supported by the sources we have. Springee (talk) 04:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

What sources that we have don't support it? Llll5032 (talk) 07:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Currently we have two sources in the article. The DailyBeast is too biased to use for contentious labels. I says he is known for spreading a particular conspiracy theory (pizza gate) but not in general. Again, DailyBeast is a generally poor source for such claims. Yes, the DB can't be taken to refute the claim but to put it in wiki-voice and without evidence we need something better. Again we don't have to use labels like this when we point to a primary article with all the details. Springee (talk) 13:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The cited DB article lists that he came to TPUSA from conspiracy-peddling cable network One America News, that he is infamous for being one of the top promoters of Pizzagate, a conspiracy and that he has continued to peddle hoaxes and bogus claims in recent years. But I agree with you that we should not source a contentious claim solely to the DB. Better sources exist. You have written what kind of sourcing would not persuade you, but it would be helpful to know what could. Can you describe what kind of source, hypothetically, you might find more acceptable than the DB for a subject "commonly described that way in reliable sources" per WP:BLPSTYLE? Also, are you sure that the phrasing you have been removing from the article is a WP:LABEL at all? Llll5032 (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

First, the DailyBeast is far to partisan with a writing style that targets persuasion rather than hard facts. Their descriptions are far from encyclopedic. Also, hoaxes and bogus claims can include conspiracy theories but that's not inherent. Additionally, the DB article isn't providing substance to support their characterizations, they are just making them. So overall they are not a good source for applying contentious claims/labels. But this goes beyond that. Per IMPARTIAL and because this is a BLP, we shouldn't just off hand drop accusatory claims/labels (value driven labels etc) in an article. If we are going to put such labels in an article they either need to be 100% bullet proof (the serial killer Ted Bundy) or supported in the article itself. We don't have those things here. Springee (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Llll5032, you'll never get Springee to change their mind on this. They will simply raise the bar as needed. If you provide what's indicated at one stage, they'll come up with something else. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Please FOC and keep your comments CIVIL. Springee (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The basis of your logic is that he is commonly thought of as a “conspiracy theorist”; but there is no merit to that argument. There hasn’t been a WP:RS in the past 4 ½ years that has applied this to him. Springee makes a good point. If you Google “Jack Posobiec Conspiracy Theorist”, in the first couple of result pages, yes you will find a few articles that label him as a conspiracy theorist; but most of these articles fall under one of two pitfalls that disqualify them as reliable sources. Either they are merely WP:HEADLINES and/or WP:RSOPINION (or both). There are a handful (maybe three to four articles at the most) of actual “reliable”, integral, reputable sources that call him a “Conspiracy theorist” directly in the body of the article that is not an opinion piece. Three to four reliable sources is not enough to clear WP:BLP protections. Labeling somebody as a conspiracy theorist is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, and it requires exceptional sources. Three or four articles isn’t “exceptional sourcing” it would take much, much more.- MaximusEditor (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Um, here's a Politico article from five days ago referring to him as "Pizzagate conspiracist Jack Posobiec". Also New York Times, Dec 2022, NPR, August 2022, Wired, December 2022 ... and so on. I'm sure it's trendy amongst the left to label right-wing antagonists as "conspiracy theorists" to try to discredit them, but if there's one character that deserves the label, it's this chap. Black Kite (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

MaximusEditor, also, his Wikipedia article notes his promotion of newer conspiracy theories, including one in 2022 about Ukraine. Llll5032 (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Is there really a BLP issue if a description simply notes the best-sourced description in a subject's own Wikipedia BLP article? Llll5032 (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Black Kite, I have reviewed all the articles you’ve posted; yes they are all recent, but still none of them hold any merit in the case of labeling Jack Posobiec as a Conspiracy Theorist on TPUSA's article. These sources actually confirm what @Springee and I have been saying all along - “There are better, more suitable neutral labels.” They are right there in the articles you linked.

The NYTimes article doesn’t call him a conspiracy theorist anywhere in the article, it calls him a far right commentator “known” for promoting the pizzagate conspiracy theory.

The NPR article doesn’t call him a conspiracy theorist anywhere in the article, it labels him as a far right internet personality.

The Wired article doesn’t call him a conspiracy theorist, it calls him a conspiracy-minded writer.

The Politico piece calls him a Pizza-Gate conspiracist.

• Notice how the labels are “far right internet personality”, “far right commentator”, “conspiracy minded writer”?

Clearly the NYTimes, NPR, and Wired have changed their labeling in light of Posobiec being on record when he stated that Pizzagate is “ridiculous”. Obviously the WP:RS have conceded the point that he is not a “conspiracy theorist”; but some Wiki Editors continue to promote this position apparently using WP:Synth.

So if we look at the articles you just shared and we take the labels they used all we are left with is articles calling him an “Internet personality”, “commentator” and writer.- MaximusEditor (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not how WP:SYNTH works, since there is absolutely no problem giving someone who has persistently promoted conspiracy theories a "conspiracy theorist" (he's still doing it, Ukraine bioweapons is the latest one). However, looking at the above conversation it does appear pointless trying to explain this to you. Black Kite (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, our wording in contention says he is "an activist known for promoting conspiracy theories", not a "conspiracy theorist". The six sources removed from the article [3][4] support the seven-word description, and no editor has added the two-word "label". Llll5032 (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

That is not true. All material about living persons must strictly adhere to NOR and NPOV. The connection between Posobiec, "conspiracy theorist", and Turning Point USA must be blatantly obvious in the sources. Politrukki (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the connection is obvious [5] in the sources. Llll5032 (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The connection would need to be more explicit than that. Let's use a hypothetical example. This study says both Trump and Clinton promoted conspiracy theories in the 2016 United States presidential election:

The 2016 United States presidential election was steeped in conspiracy theories promoted by and about the major party candidates. Donald Trump questioned the connection between the father of fellow Republican Party nominee, Ted Cruz, and John F. Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald (McCaskill, 2016), and Hillary Clinton accused Trump of being a "puppet" of Russian President Vladimir Putin (Blake, 2016).

Based on that, would you attach a "conspiracy theorist" label to Trump and Clinton in the 2016 United States presidential election article and why? Politrukki (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

You could discuss that WP:OTHERCONTENT at their talk pages. The Washington Post [6] and The New Republic[7] are clear, and both of them describe Posobiec's involvement with the TPUSA/Human Events project. There are many other independent sources for the description at Posobiec's article. Llll5032 (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Labeling Posobiec as a conspiracy theorist is totally inappropriate in this context. This is the Turning Point USA article, you do not have any WP:RS that tie conspiracy theories with Posobiec and TPUSA. You are using the Wikipedia voice to tell readers that TPUSA hires people because they promote Conspiracy Theories - there is no basis, at all, for this. In my opinion, adding the conspiracy label is defaming TPUSA. For the past 5 years, Posobiec has not promoted any conspiracy theories and there is not indication, at all, that TPUSA hired him because he is a Conspiracy Theorist. They hired him because he is a political activist, that is the mainstream current perspective. If you insist on using a label; "political activist" is accurate and appropriate, "conspiracy theorist" is inappropriate and defamatory That is the appropriate WP:IMPARTIAL label, which is what the original phrasing was.- MaximusEditor (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I support the conspiracy theorist wording. This is the guy who said a secret group was meeting at a pizza place to abuse kids. Impartial means saying what RS says, not writing sentences without adjectives. Vizorblaze (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Keep "Conspiracy theories" out of Turning Point USA's article. No relevance on Turning Point USA's article. Political Activist is fine as is. Eruditess (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't be silly. He's a conspiracy theorist. Pizzagate, Ukraine, pipe bombs, blah. In fact, if you were thinking of someone to call a conspiracy theorist and not be contradicted, you couldn't think of many people more likely than him. Black Kite (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Mention of Cease & Desist against MSNBC in Controversies section

Its worth mentioning the Cease & Desist against MSNBC, aimed at opinion columnist Julio Ricardo Varela for calling Turning Point USA “a MAGA White supremacist cult”. They did issue a revision after cease and desist was issued. I'm thinking most suitable section is "controversies."

1)Fox News coverage

2)MSN article

3)Mediate article

Thanks--MaximusEditor (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Fox News (1) and Mediaite (both 2 and 3) are only marginally reliable. Do any better sources discuss the case? Llll5032 (talk) 03:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I know they are marginally reliable sources, but there are three of them all corroborating the same story and using case by case critical thinking (as it instructs us to do on the WP:RSP page when presented with marginally reliable sources), we can use WP:COMMON sense to come to the conclusion that this did actually happen and a cease and desist was in fact issued. I would also say that this isn't an exceptional claim, so Fox News and Mediaite will suffice. MaximusEditor (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Source 2 is Source 3 syndicated on a different website, so you have listed two marginal sources in total. A relevant policy is WP:PROPORTION, which says we "treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject". So the sources should be reliable to include a fact. Have you found any better sources? Llll5032 (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Here are two additional sources that aren't syndicated.

1)CNS NEWS

2)AMERICAN WIRE

These all cover the details of the cease and desist, which outline controversial slandering a particular journalist wrote against Turning Point USA. Now that there are 4 sources, I definitely do not see how inclusion is still debatable? - MaximusEditor (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

CNS News is considered unreliable by Wikipedia as well as all other subdivisions of Media Research Center. I've never heard of American Wire; but I looked at it and it isn't close to acceptable. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Using CNS News as a sole citation would be unreliable verifying facts on Wikipedia; but, it is not the only source. Remember, with sources and Wikipedia WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. When it corroborates with three other sources, you must use WP:COMMON sense. In this instance, for this article, the context is not fabricating any information. For the American Wire piece, can you please state how an article that has screenshots of Charlie Kirk's Twitter feed showing the actual, legally filed Cease and Desist document as being not close to acceptable (CNS News and Americanwire both show screenshots)? So your position is that the Cease and Desist is not factual/verifaible? Here are the Twitter Screenshots which at this point along with 4 corroborating articles satisfies WP:V . Please review WP:RSPUSE - "For example, even extremely low-quality sources, such as social media, may sometimes be used as self-published sources for routine information about the subjects themselves. - MaximusEditor (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• Agree , this is notable, much more notable than most of the other content in the Controversies section. I think readers who come to this article would find this information informative. This information definitely warrants inclusion in the “controversies” section. I’m confused as to why editors would challenge the verifiability of this information, as links to the screenshots from a legally filed “cease & desist” have been provided. Several sources all corroborating that MSNBC columnist had to change his op-ed (Here is link to another article that corroborates that msnbc was sent a cease and desist). Add it in, I dont see any grounds to remove it.

Eruditess (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

---

I have removed references to "flvoicenews" and "americanwirenews." These are not reliable sources. This subject is amply covered in the mainstream press (and even a bit in scholarly sources); we do not need (and should not use) bad sources. Neutrality^talk 19:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Paragraph in the lead is WP:UNDUE and needs removal

There was this edit made albeit in good faith by an IP editor that added this text into the lead:

“TPUSA has been involved in multiple controversies, including allegations of racism and criticism from other conservative groups and figures”

This edit was added in hastily and is WP:UNDUE. If you look at the controversies section; you have two instances of TPUSA employees exhibiting racist comments on social media, who were swiftly terminated and rebuked with a public statement from TPUSA leadership stating “Racism has no place at Turning Point USA”.

The rest of the controversies section contains opinion profiles from collegiate journalists, an occurrence where non-associated alt-right and far right activists crashed a TPUSA speaking event and two Media Outlet allegations that resulted in Cease & Desist Orders by TPUSA.

This editor lumped all of these “controversies” together and then highlighted two instances of racism as if this is prevalent enough to warrant inclusion in the lead. Inclusion of the two instances of racism that were rebuked and summarizing it in the lead is breaching WP:REDFLAG, WP:BLPGROUP and blatantly violates encyclopedic WP:TONE. Out of the two cited sources the New Yorker piece may be reliable, but that doesn’t make the content covered a mainstream view. As for the attributed HuffPo piece, we can see that WP:RSP categorizes HuffPo as openly biased. We should not use attributed opinions as weight for the lead.

This paragraph needs to be removed.

Same logic goes for the “criticism from other conservative groups and figures” text in the lead. This is Undue was well, it’s a minority view, and lacks weight for inclusion in the lead. This lazy editing can be dangerous as an uneducated reader coming to the page could think that TPUSA is a racist organization strife with controversies. MaximusEditor (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

What are other independent WP:BESTSOURCES saying about the controversies? Is there a lot of WP:SIGCOV? Llll5032 (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The Chronicle of Higher Education source says that But the latest critic to blast Kirk’s group is a fellow conservative organization. Young America’s Foundation, founded more than 50 years ago at the home of William F. Buckley Jr., has written a blistering 12-page memorandum (reprinted below) “outlining the lack of integrity, honesty, experience, and judgment of this growing organization.” ... The memo also alleges that one of Turning Point USA’s methods for inflating attendance at its events is “boosting numbers with racists & Nazi sympathizers.” The New Yorker says Former Turning Point employees say that the organization was a difficult workplace and rife with tension, some of it racial. ... Speakers at Turning Point events on various college campuses have been accused of going out of their way to thumb their noses at ethnic and cultural sensitivities. Those are probably enough to support something attributed. Academic criticism can be seen here, though it is perhaps a bit more nuanced. --Aquillion (talk) 05:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Can we remove this sentence from the lead and put in the body?

This sentence:

"According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, TPUSA has attempted to influence student government elections in an effort to "combat liberalism on college and university campuses."

This information is not anywhere in the body and this sentence makes the lead look redundant because we already have a prior sentence saying:

"according to The Chronicle of Higher Education, TPUSA "is now the dominant force in campus conservatism"."

I don't think either one of these attributions by the Chronicle of Higher Education is notable enough to put into the lead or has enough WP:WEIGHT in the article body. Eruditess (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The Chronicle of Higher Education is a good source. Do other RS agree or disagree with the assessments? Llll5032 (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying Chronicle of Higher Education isn't a good source, I know it is considered reliable. It just been hoisted to the lead paragraph with no mention in the body of somewhat thin statements. I think that it belongs in the body. Not the lead paragraph. Doesnt have enough WP:WEIGHT. Eruditess (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that usually information in the second paragraph should also be described later in the article, and MOS:LEADREL recommends that, but it is unclear to me that this information should be removed from the top. Does the Chronicle offer information about the group's influence in student government elections that clarifies if it is important? Are there examples that should be noted in the body? Are other RS describing the activity? Llll5032 (talk) 03:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

In that second paragraph, it starts by talking about the Professor Watchlist. The last part of that same paragraph talks about the Schoolboard watchlist. The theme is obviously watchlists. I don't really see how the random sentence attributing the Chronicle of Higher Education is relevant, doesnt have anything to do with watchlists. Also I still don't see how your argument is justifying something staying in the lead that has no weight in the body of the article. That would set a terrible precedent of putting things in the lead sentence that lack weight. Eruditess (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The first two sentences appear describe the group's activities at colleges, and the third sentence describes local school boards. I did not write the paragraph, but that organization appears logical to me. Did you find out more about the context from the Chronicle or what other RS are saying? Llll5032 (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Coming back to this, @Llll5032. When I google "Turning Point USA influences student government elections", there is no real WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources discussing interference. There are a couple of WP:RSSM (student media/college publications) that discuss a group called "Campus Victory project" that Turning Point USA goes through to contact students. I think with the lack of coverage by RS, I still motion to move this from the lead section and mention it in the body. Eruditess (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Eruditess, there appear to be five cited sources in the Turning Point USA#Involvement in student government elections section, which the second-paragraph sentence appears to summarize. Llll5032 (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@Llll5032 , The first sentence in the Turning Point USA#Involvement in student government elections section is what we are basing the summary in the lead off of:

"Turning Point USA has been involved in influencing student government elections at a number of colleges and universities."

If you take the three sources from that sentence, you have two of them citing the first. The New Yorker & Politico piece explicitly cite “Inside a Stealth Plan for Political Influence” by Michael Vasquez as their source of information.  This is a situation of WP:ONESOURCE since these 3 citations are not independent of each other as explained via Wikipedia:3REFS.  The two articles citing the first need to be removed.  Thus leaving a single WP:RS, which doesn’t warrant WP:WEIGHT for inclusion in the lead.  The following two sentences, use a Media Matters WP:MREL citation that cites a WP:RSSM (The Diamondback) as its source of information (once again, WP:ONESOURCE of a marginally reliable article citing a student publication).  The student publication (Diamondback) talks about a singular incident of The Unity party from (Maryland) not disclosing nonmonetary contributions in the form of flyer design from TPUSA, and withdrawing from the race. As well as assisting in flyer design and distributing flyers at University of Wisconsin-Madison, where it was not in violation of any student government laws. This leaves quite a flimsy sourcing for quite a substantial accusation.  The word "influence", while neutral, seems to be a WP:WEASELWORD that might confuse uneducated readers that TPUSA knowingly impacts student government elections illegally. When Kirk has openly said that the support given would be in the form of professional training in campaign and leadership techniques and direct financial assistance. Once again, I think it absolutely belongs in the body. The argument to keep it in the lead just falls apart when you consider that the weight of that accusation is from a single journalist. This all seems to be in good faith, just whomever the editor was who contributed those original edits didn't realize it was all singularly sourced. Eruditess (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Eruditess, it would appear that the additional reliable sources confirm the WP:WEIGHT of the Chronicle piece, which is already a good RS. The governing policies for the matter should be MOS:LEADREL and WP:PROPORTION (about due weight in the lead section and the article) rather than the two you cited (which measure the notability of subjects for their own article). If you are concerned that "influence" implies illegality, then you could propose another word that is used by the RS. Llll5032 (talk) 01:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• If we were going to remove one or the other, I think the first one is more informative (it covers what they do and the overall focus of their politics in more detail, whereas the second one just says they're more important than other conservative campus groups right now, in a way that risks becoming WP:PUFFERY if the context of the other quote is removed.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Tyler Bowyer (who no longer works at Turning Point USA) from leadership section

Read through this Wapo article, and it states Bowyer is COO of Turning Point Action. He no longer works at Turning Point USA. A quick google of his linkdin profile and you can verify this is accurate. (I understand that linkdin is not considered reliable source but just use WP:COMMON sense.). After removing Tyler Bowyer out from the leadership section it was reverted back under WP:PRESERVE as the edit summary by @Llll5032. Other similar organizations article pages do not practice keeping former leadership positions in the article, I don't see any precedence to do so here. I also can not think any reason why keeping former employees would benefit an encyclopedia (Unless there was some notable reasoning, which I don't see in this situation). This seems to fall under WP:NOTDIRECTORY. There is no information included in his section(currently) that is relevant to this article. It talks about him becoming COO in 2017, his education, his association with Students for Trump and that he is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So why keep it in? Eruditess (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

When did he stop working for Turning Point USA? If a RS says he left, then the article should note his departure. Significant events in the group's history, which are included in his section, should not be erased from the article. Llll5032 (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

What part about his section is significant to Turning Point USA? Thats what I'm trying to figure out? Can you give me the specific part about his section that is significant to Turning Point USA? Also as far as @Springee's primary TPUSA link. I dont see where it says he is COO of TPUSA still (In Springee's defense I think that the wording is confusing on that link). If you do WP:OR you can go to his linkd'in profile as I mentioned. You can see he stopped working for TPUSA in June of 2022. He started as COO of TPAction in July of 2022.......He went from one job to the other. We have to use WP:COMMON. Also go google his twitter, in his twitter profile is says he is the COO of TPAction, not TPUSA. The WaPo article RS specifically states that he is the COO of Turning Point Action:

"Fournier indicated that he wanted the identification with Trump to remain explicit and worried that the revenue plan proposed by Bowyer, the chief operating officer of Turning Point Action, the political arm of Turning Point USA, would leave too little money for candidates." 

Eruditess (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I just did some ORing and found this [8]. Per the TPUSA site he is the COO of both organizations. Springee (talk) 10:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

At Talk:Turning Point Action, editors appeared to agree that any notable occurrences of overlap should also be kept at this TPUSA article. One of two editors in the discussion even said that its article should be merged with this article. Llll5032 (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes @Llll5032, I wouldn't argue that notable occurrences of overlap should be kept in both articles. Which brings up the same question once again, can you please identify what part of the Tyler Bowyer section do you consider a "notable occurrence"? Keeping him labeled as the COO of TPUSA is false. WP:COMMON SENSE tells us that through Linkdin and a WP:GREL WaPo article verifies it.

It talks about him becoming COO in 2017, his education, his association with Students for Trump and that he is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So why keep it in?
— User:Eruditess

Eruditess (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The notable occurrences are occurrences described in detail by WP:GREL sources, per WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:PROPORTION. Does TPUSA still list him on its site? Llll5032 (talk) 02:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Just as a heads up, Turning Point Action was WP:SPLIT out awhile ago into its own article from this article. MaximusEditor (talk) 23:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

At Talk:Turning Point Action, editors agreed that "any notable occurrences of overlap" should also be kept at this TPUSA article. One of the two editors in the discussion suggested that there should not even be separate articles because the groups are so closely linked. Llll5032 (talk) 02:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Emerson College

The Emerson chapter was suspended in ?2021 for handing out stickers negative about (the ruling party of) China. https://wng.org/roundups/censorship-on-campus-is-kinda-sus-1633979226 . 164.47.179.32 (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

"Controversies" section

I WP:BOLDly merged the controversies section into the end of the History section, based on WP:STRUCTURE in the NPOV policy, which says: "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure." Similarly, the WP:CSECTION recommends that we should "avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies" and "best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section". Llll5032 (talk) 08:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I also added a Reception section for some episodes of commentary, generally by non-WP:GREL sources unconnected to the group, which had been in the Controversies section. Llll5032 (talk) 08:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I do think we need to get rid of the "controversies" section but it shouldn't be dumped in the "History section", similarly with other sections that were combined into sub-sections under History. "History" section is definitely not the right place. While I like the WP:CSECTION essay, it isn't official policy. I have no doubt we can easily find consensus for creating improvements in what to do with the "controversies" section. If you look through the edit logs, at one point EliteArcher88 cited WP:CSECTION for his edit in renaming the "Controversies" section to "Views" which is a more accurate terminology and adheres better to WP:STRUCTURE. I am going to revert this back but do want to respect WP:BRD/WP:CYCLE policy and discuss changes before we attempt to reformat the controversies section, which has sat for quite some time. Eruditess (talk) 03:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Eruditess, some of the edits you reverted were not related to merging the Controversies section. Did you mean to revert every edit? Llll5032 (talk) 04:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I object to restoring those changes. There were quite a lot of changes made I just want to discuss them. I liked the idea of a "receptions" section and categorizing some of the critiques of TPUSA into this section. But the "History" section is not the right place for that. Why don't we rename the "Controversies" section to "Views" then make a sub-section called reception?

I dont mind this edit (shortening an opinion; tagging for third-party source for WP:DUEWEIGHT).

I dont mind the change of "Internal dissention" to "Heal our Voice dissidents"

I strongly agree with the BSN tags/WP:NOTRS tags.

I like the idea of combining both the watchlists (professor + schoolboard) into one section in the body.

Don't agree with the MOS:SAID change.

Strongly disagree with (grouping "Political activities" section with "Activities" section) edit.

I'm indifferent about relocating the mission statement, It isn't WP:PROMOTIONAL so it best informs readers in the lead paragraph. It summarizes what their "self-stated" mission is, I don't know why so many editors see it as problematic when attributed. Many WP:PRIMARY WP:RS sources attribute it.'

The rest of the edits were not improvements or weren't relevant from these standpoints. Eruditess (talk) 01:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I am restoring the edits to which you did not object. We can continue to talk about the others. I am moving the mission statement from the history section to activities because it is not historical. There may be other DUE places to move a mission statement; for example, a paragraph comparing how TPUSA describes itself with how independent RS describe it. Llll5032 (talk) 03:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Eruditess, what is your opinion of these edits, which group the section about campus chapters with the section about campus activism under "Activities", and edit the sub-headings to be more specific? Llll5032 (talk) 03:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Llll5032, I think we should do a little reformatting. The Watchlists should not be under the "Activities" section. We should make a new Watchlist section, I believe it has enough weight. We should move the "involvement in student government elections" sub-section into/under the "controversies" section. Activism sub-section can stay, since that is also an activity. Also the "Activities" section should be hoisted up above the "Finance" section, maybe even above the leadership section. Eruditess (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I do not think that Controversies should be a separate section, so I would oppose moving any new sub-sections into it. Llll5032 (talk) 01:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Merge the two watchlist's sub sections into a new section titled "watchlists". Trim down the "professor watchlist" section as it has been WP:SPLIT out to its own article and doesnt need to have any superfluous information kept that isn't related specifically to TPUSA. According to WikiProject Conservatism Style Guide's format on organizations, sources of funding (aka "finances") should be near the bottom. Here is the Style Guide's layout format:

• Lead
• History
• Objectives
• Leadership or Organizational structure
• Membership
• Policies and positions or Ideology
• Programs
• Accomplishments
• Sources of funding -- can also be placed under Organizational structure
• See also
• References
• External links

Note:TPUSA has a "Leadership" section not a "Organizational structure" section.

I would say the "activities" section most similarly relates to Objectives section (Mission statement was recently moved there by another editor). Activities section also holds more WP:WEIGHT than the finance section so it absolutely should be placed above it regardless. MaximusEditor (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no controversies section in that suggested format. Would that mean merging the Controversies section in this article into History? Llll5032 (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

According to WP:CSECTION:

"best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section. For example, if a politician received significant criticism about their public image, create a section entitled "Public image" or "Public profile", and include all related information—positive and negative—within that section. If a book was heavily criticized, create a section in the book's article called "Reception", and include positive and negative material in that section."

-We have to come up with a better section name other than "controversies" perhaps as the cited CSECTION advises (simply replace the word "book" with "organization" in the quotation above) and label the section "reception". PragerU has done this and does not have a "controversies" section but rather a "reception" section. History section is not the place to relocate. MaximusEditor (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

As far as closest formatting section, I think the "controversies section" is just a collective section of medias critiques on their policies/positions or their programs, so somewhere around those areas. MaximusEditor (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree insofar as commentary by non-WP:GREL sources should be in a Reception section instead of controversies. But most of the Controversies sub-sections, including "Heal Our Voice" and the tax code matters, would not fit in a Reception section. In my opinion, parts of the Controversies section that are reliably sourced should be included in History or other standard sections in which they fit, proportionate to independent reliable sources per WP:BESTSOURCES. Llll5032 (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that not everything currently under "Controversies" section would fit under a "reception" section. I think we should change and expand the old "Controversies" section title to "Reception/Critique on Policies/Positions/Ideologies." I think that would house all the subsections fairly minus "Heal our Voice" & the tax code stuff.

As far as "Heal our voice" section, I'm going to completely remove that. It's single source WP:MREL Daily Beast article that doesn't pass WP:10YT. The only other mention I could find of "Heal our Voice" on google was just a reprint of the Daily Beast. The tax code sub-section could be grouped into "Finance" section. The "Covid-19 misinformation" sub-section is a critique on their Covid position/ideology, so it would fit under "Reception/Critique on Policies/Positions/Ideologies" section. MaximusEditor (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

We can't make a verbatim copy of the Wiki-project Conservatism guide to section layout for organizations. I do think we can make changes to get it quite close. Seems that consensus is to add a reception section. So let's go ahead and do that. I do like the idea of expanding this addition of a "Reception" section to a broader section title such as "Reception/Critique on Policies/Positions/Ideologies/Procedure."(Note* I added "Procedure" on the the end of the section title to accommodate the few entries about the interviews with former employees written by Jane Mayer) This should be able to house all of the content that is currently in there. Pop the tax stuff subsection into finances and I think we have a vastly improved article layout. Eruditess (talk) 01:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:STRUCTURE says that we must avoid an "apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other." Is "Reception/Critique on Policies/Positions/Ideologies/Procedure" only "Controversies" with a longer name? Llll5032 (talk) 03:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The History section currently ends in 2017 because many events recounted by independent sources are relegated to other sections. Did TPUSA's history end in 2017? Llll5032 (talk) 04:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Renaming the "Controversies" section to Reception/Critique on Policies/Positions/Ideologies & Procedure will adhere to the WP:STRUCTURE policy issues you raise. Reception/Critique on Policies/Positions/Ideologies & Procedure is a neutral and descriptive header title that does not insinuate or "deem" any content within controversial. The current header "Controversies" does have a certain biased "connotation". That is why we are discussing a change. Other than the current "Controversies" header, there is no presentation of material within this section that would influence a reader to conceive material within as false. There is no "apparent hierarchy of fact" so the WP:STRUCTURE policy argument falls flat once the section header is changed.

You keep Rehashing a motion to move things into the History section under the logic that we should remove material from a more concise/descriptive section and place it under a larger generic (History) Section. Under that same logic we should just have all sections be sub-sections under "History" since all published material/events are part of the history of a subject. History sections should include "historic" facts about the article subject (events of great importance) such as details about the formation and major milestones. Currently, as is the "History" section does (Minus the last paragraph discussing donors which we should move into finance/sources of funding section). Anything in the current "controversies" section was specifically placed there instead of "history" on purpose. Nothing covered in "controversies" identifies as "historical" information.

What part of the "controversies" section isolates itself into "ignoring" or "fighting" against each other? I can't find any occurrences of that. Eruditess (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

No separate section named "Reception/Critique on Policies/Positions/Ideologies/Procedure" is recommended by the Conservatism style guide; does any other guide on Wikipedia recommend one? Part of that proposed title, "Critique", is a synonym for "Criticism", which is disputed by WP:CSECTION even more than "Controversies". Llll5032 (talk) 02:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

This is what WP:CSECTION says about criticism (if we use the synonym "critique"):

"An article dedicated to negative criticism of a topic is usually discouraged" - As discussed previously "controversies" section is neutrally worded (minus the section title), so no issue there. Do you think there is any negative non-neutral criticism content currently in the controversies section? If so it should be promptly removed as it would violate WP:NPOV.

& also via CSECTION:

"In some situations the term "criticism" may be appropriate in an article or section title, for example, if there is a large body of critical material, and if independent secondary sources comment, analyze or discuss the critical material." - Which is exactly our use case so we are good to make proposed section title change edits.

So if the logic is that "critique" is a synonym for "criticism", by CSECTION policy we are all good to proceed.

Also side note*- "critique" has a more neutral connotation vs "criticism".

This is what Merriam Webster says (In a section labelled "Did you Know" on the definition page for "critique"):

"What’s the difference between criticism and critique? There’s some overlap in meaning, but they’re not the same in every situation. Criticism is most often used broadly to refer to the act of negatively criticizing someone or something (“I’m more interested in encouragement right now than criticism”) or a remark or comment that expresses disapproval (“She shared a minor criticism about the design”), while critique is a more formal word for a carefully expressed judgment, opinion, or evaluation of both the good and bad qualities of something—for example, books or movies. Thus, a critic can write a critique that may be full of criticism."

So the argument "critique" is a synonym for "criticism" falls flat in this situation. Eruditess (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Does any other group on Wikipedia have a section called "Reception/Critique on Policies/Positions/Ideologies/Procedure" like the one you want? Llll5032 (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Bottom Line in this case, changing the section heading name from "Controversies" to the proposed "Reception/Critique on Policies/Positions/Ideologies & Procedure" is a vast improvement because it will be a more accurate, descriptive, neutral header replacing a problematic biased header. So I'm making that change. Also will move "Finances" section down to stay more in line with the proposed section layout from WikiProject Conservatism Style Guide for organizations that was linked previously. As well as some other positive quality of life changes for the article. MaximusEditor (talk) 01:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I reverted the novel heading language "Reception/Critique on Policies/Positions/Ideologies & Procedure" per the Manual of Style introduction: "Editors should write articles using straightforward, succinct, easily understood language and structure articles with consistent, reader-friendly layouts and formatting". I oppose having a Controversies section, but renaming it to a long title that is inconsistent with other articles does not conform to the Wikipedia Manual of Style or to the WikiProject Conservatism Style Guide. Controversies content should be moved into other standard sections neutrally instead, per WP:STRUCTURE, "by folding debates into the narrative". Llll5032 (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Because only three of us have been in this conversation, some opinions or edits by other editors may be helpful for establishing some kind of consensus. Llll5032 (talk) 03:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

You oppose having a Controversies section. But you reverted an edit to change the heading to a neutral and accurate description of critique from the media. You want to move the criteria of Controversies into other standard sections. The initial source of your argument was WP:CSECTION, in which I quoted as saying:

According to WP:CSECTION:"best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section. For example, if a politician received significant criticism about their public image, create a section entitled "Public image" or "Public profile", and include all related information—positive and negative—within that section. If a book was heavily criticized, create a section in the book's article called "Reception", and include positive and negative material in that section."

So according to your initial logic/source of argument for change (CSECTION essay) it says to create a section. It also says to include positive and negative material in that section. You even quoted that last part in your opening paragraph for this talk page discussion (The part I underlined in the green talk page quote above). I can understand the proposed new header being long. Lets compromise and make it simply "Reception/Critique from media". It's short, neutral and precise/accurate. It also resolves your issue with being inconsistent with other articles, since "reception/critique" is quite a broad and common section amongst articles. It is an absolute improvement for the article as it would make it more neutral. MaximusEditor (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Why does this group need a section name that no other article on Wikipedia uses?

Instead, why not simply keep some opinionated commentary in a small Reception section, and move news and WP:GREL assessments into other standard sections to make the whole article more informative and neutral? That would satisfy WP:STRUCTURE ("Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative") and WP:IS ("Emphasizing the views of disinterested sources is necessary to achieve a neutral point of view in an article.") Llll5032 (talk) 04:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

There is no policy that restricts the creation of a unique section header. As pointed out, it seems like WP:CSECTION essay actually promotes the idea of creating a unique section title. If it is accurate and relevant why revert it? I like the original proposal of "Reception/Critique on Policies/Positions/Ideologies & Procedure". That is my first choice. I would agree to compromise to a more vague shortened header such as "Reception/Critique from media", or as Llll5032 mentioned maybe instead of "reception" we can use "assessment". While not as descript, I would agree that either is still an improvement to the article. If you just change the header to a neutral and accurate header, it would conform to WP:STRUCTURE because it would be naturally integrated into the narrative.

Via WP:STRUCTURE:

Pay attention to headers, footnotes, or other formatting elements that might unduly favor one point of view or one aspect of the subject, and watch out for structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints

If you are favoring the WP:STRUCTURE argument, changing the header to a neutral and accurate section title would actually help the reader fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints as well as avoid giving unduly favor to one point of view or one aspect of the subject. (As the header name "Controversies" having a negative connotation would do exactly that to uneducated readers). Eruditess (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Does any editor including @Eruditess object to me restoring some of the edits reversed in this revert, which may not have been intentional, and include some copy edits and renaming of section titles? I will not restore any disputed edits without consensus. Llll5032 (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

No, I think that's fine. Actually, I'm not completely opposed to a "Controversy" section anyway for a group that has been widely called "controversial" in reliable sources and has even been accused (again, in reliable sources) of recruiting members through its controversial actions. Black Kite (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I am re-adding some edits that got no specified objections and probably won't be controversial. Llll5032 (talk) 10:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I think these were a good addition. Thanks @Llll5032 Eruditess (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Removing donor names off of the article

In the "Finances" section there is a list of donors, this is information is solely sourced from PR Watch* which is ran by the Center for Media and Democracy. Neither appear to be on the WP:RSP. Its sister organization SourceWatch is deemed as WP:GUNREL. It seems that it isn't common practice to have a directory of names of donors for non-profits on Wikipedia as it is not a directory. I think it breaches WP:BLP protections and the names should be removed. Eruditess (talk) 07:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposed removal of "2021 United States Capitol attack" section

@Llll5032: you (in good faith) reverted an edit that removed [[WP:SYNTH]] content with the edit summary of:

"Rv section blanking. Cited RS make few distinctions between the groups, and there has never been a consensus to remove content when TPUSA is mentioned by the RS"

The only mention of TPUSA in all the sources cited is only attached to the title of Charlie Kirk as "the leader of Turning Point USA". Thats it.

There is consensus to put content that is exclusive attributed to TPAction onto their own article page. Inclusion of TPAction content on this article is only for when there no discernable distinction. However this is not the case with my edit, as the sources make it very clear that it was explicitly TPAction who were involved with Jan 6th.

The Daily Dot article even printed a correction at the bottom of the article stating they wrongfully labelled TPUSA as TPAction:

"Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly referred to Turning Point USA (TPUSA) instead of Turning Point Action (TPA)."

The sourcing also cites the deleted tweet form Charlie Kirk:

"The historic event will likely be one of the largest and most consequential in American history,” Kirk wrote. “The team at @TrumpStudents & Turning Point Action are honored to help make this happen, sending 80+ buses full of patriots to DC to fight for this president.”

There is distinction between TPUSA vs TPAction in all the RS and there is no single use case of any sources saying TPUSA was involved with anything during Jan 6th. Doing so is breaching [[WP:SYNTH]]. Please revert your revert. Eruditess (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Eruditess, the edit I reverted was your removal of longstanding content which has been present in this article since January 2021. Secondary sources you deleted all mention Turning Point USA, so they should stay. In 2020, the year before the content was added, a new article had been created for Turning Point Action ("the political advocacy arm of the 501(c)(3) Turning Point USA, both founded by Charlie Kirk"). Creating a separate article for Turning Point Action was questioned because of the close connections between the groups,[1][2] but the consensus position since 2020 appears to be that when RS mention both groups, the information is included in both articles. Llll5032 (talk) 20:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I edited the heading above per WP:TALKHEADPOV. Llll5032 (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The three cited secondary sources all describe the connection between TPUSA and Turning Point Action, so I added the context. Llll5032 (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

You adding context cements how inappropriate this content is on this page. Citing the connection between TPUSA & TPAction doesn't make this content relevant to the TPUSA article in this situation. It is only long standing material because it was most likely added into the article before the Daily Dot issued a correction for misleading readers into thinking TPUSA had any connection with sending busses to D.C. on Jan 6th. Trying to use the slight mention in the cited sources of Charlie Kirk being the leader of TPUSA, or the use of TPAction being the "political advocacy arm" to TPUSA simply is not enough weight to warrant inclusion into this article. TPAction has been split out to its own article. Please stop ignoring that Turning Point Action Wikipedia page exists. The split was to move exclusive content of TPAction over to its own page. All cited sources in the Jan 6th capital attack section are exclusive to TPAction. Eruditess (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Are you actually seriously claiming that TPUSA and TPAction are so unrelated that content should not be shared across the two articles where relevant? Because that would appear to be delusional (and the sources agree). Black Kite (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that when TPUSA and TPACTION are both involved in a singular incident covered in RS , we should include it in this (TPUSA) article.  But that definitely is not the case here.  At no point in any RS cited is there mention of TPUSA being involved with the buses sent on Jan 6th.  Believing that TPUSA was in any way involved is delusional; it never happened and therefore putting that in the TPUSA article is a tremendous disservice to Wikipedia and it’s readers because it simply is not accurate or true.  You can’t associate every comment that Charlie Kirk says with TPUSA (because he is the founder of TPUSA) in the same way that editors cannot add every comment that Elon Musk makes to the SpaceX, Tesla, and X (formerly Twitter) Wiki-pages.  It is inappropriate, illogical, and unprofessional to do so.  Wikipedia needs to respect and honor the legal status of an organization and not intentionally blur the lines by implying that said entities have committed illegal activities. As editors we are to report what the RS say, not interpret it to how we view events. I’m willing to absolutely leave it on this article if you can find one instance of RS saying that TPUSA sent the buses. But the fact of the matter is, you can’t.  Because it didn’t happen.  Turning Point Action sent the busses, explicitly, because that is what TPACTION, as an activist organization, does.  All the sources confirm that TPACTION was involved.  TPUSA can’t legally be involved with sending those buses as it would violate their 501(c)3 charter.  Two of the cited sources issued corrections for wrongfully identifying TPAction as TPUSA.  It was important that those outlets printed those corrections because identifying TPAction erroneously as TPUSA has massive repercussions. Differences between TPUSA & TPAction is recognized by Wikipedia because each group has it’s own Wiki page.  Wikipedia needs to respect that and not create an association out of thin air by associating TPUSA with sending the buses.  Finally, the consensus is that anything not related to both entities needs to be kept separate especially since Wikipedia recognizes that TPACTION and TPUSA are separate and distinct groups. Eruditess (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

As the cited Reuters article says, "Another sponsor of the Jan. 6 rally was Turning Point Action, the political action committee arm of Turning Point USA." [9] For more than two years this section has summarized WP:GREL sources that show the association, but now you are saying it is "an association out of thin air"? Llll5032 (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I added two more WP:GREL refs that include all the claims and associations with no synthesis. More appear to be available. Llll5032 (talk) 04:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I removed those two sources per WP:OVERCITE, because there were already four citations. I would also recommend removing the tweet. Politrukki (talk) 12:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Please reread my response.

"and not create an association out of thin air by associating TPUSA with sending the buses". emphasis on the "sending busses".

Nobody is contending that TPAction isn't the sister political action organization of Turning Point USA. Now consensus says that material that is explicit to TPAction needs to be solely on their article page. Your argument is that because multiple sources defined Charlie Kirk as the "leader of TPUSA", that is enough of an association to keep it on TPUSA's page even though the sources ALL say that it was TPAction who was involved with busing people to the capitol on Jan 6th. You are adding in sources that are in direct alignment of what I continually keep saying. That TPUSA can not participate in election/campaign, therefore they could not legally be involved in any facet with coordinating buses. Which is what the "2021 Capitol attack" section discusses.

Even the new sources you added clearly emphasize this point.

From The Guardian article that you added in:

"The group, which has non-profit charity status that bars political work, also has a political arm called Turning Point Action that can do election work."

Also the NBC article says:

"Turning Point Action participated in efforts to “Stop the Steal,” bussing in supporters to Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021, and funneling money to rally speakers, including former Fox News anchor Kimberly Guilfoyle, but did not organize or take part in the march to the Capitol that erupted in violence."

Seeing that the NBC article explicitly points out that TPAction did not organize or take part in any Capitol related violence (Which I will be adding in). The section heading needs to be changed to something more accurate (As inferring any "attack" on the Capitol on TPAction's behalf would be WP:SYNTH). Current section title (2021 United States Capitol attack) has no basis and needs to be changed to "2021 Capitol protest/Stop the Steal". The current section title is false/ WP:SYNTH. Eruditess (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The RS say that Turning Point Action is the political arm of Turning Point USA and sent the buses. If you decide to edit the section carefully and match the emphases of the best independent reliable sources per WP:STICKTOSOURCE instead of blanking RS, then you may get fewer arguments. Please be WP:CAREFUL about RS content. Please also respect that veteran editors have not agreed with some of your interpretations of Wikipedia policies and your view on when Turning Point Action is included. Your view is probably not the "consensus" if more editors are disputing it than agree. Llll5032 (talk) 02:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm quite aware and familiar with how WP:CONSENSUS works, but thank you for the good faith reminder. I have respected and complied with Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle fully and completely and only strive to improve any article I edit for accuracy. As per my previous comment, I understand and agree that we will not be removing the "2021 Capitol attack" section. However, information in the section as well as the title of the section is inaccurate according to the NBC article, which you (Llll5032) supplied in this discussion, so I'm going to say we can all agree its WP:GREL and it qualifies as WP:BESTSOURCES. Therefore I don't see any issue with citing information from it and giving it proper weight. Eruditess (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Good, we are in agreement that adding nuances and proportionate details from WP:GREL sources like NBC News is likely to improve the article. Llll5032 (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)