This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Turning Point USA article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page
Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.
Your edit is much too similar to a previously challenged edit citing a "BLP problem". I think that reasoning has merit, because Boyles appears to be largely not public figure. Your revert did nothing to address the problem and I asked you to self-revert, but as you have failed to do so, I will remove the quote. I will let "e.g. why he hates America" to stand, but I am afraid leaving only that part might be misleading.If you want to gain consensus for restoring the edit (or similar content), you should present evidence that the accusation is commonly repeated in reliable sources. If the accusation is to be included, our article should also very likely mention that there is no evidence for the accusation (see the source you cited). Politrukki (talk) 17:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kyle Rittenhouse description
Considering that Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted, and deemed to have acted in self defence, describing him as "a young man who gained notoriety for murder charges in Kenosha" seems both misleading and defaming. It also seems like an attempt to confuse rather than enlight the reader regarding the motivation for the portrayal of Rittenhouse at the TPUSA event.
Particularly when media had portrayed Rittenhouse as a racist vigilante who shot innocent black people, while the evidence revealed during the trial was that he had been chased and attacked by the three men he shot, that they were all white, at least two of them convicted felons with a history of violence and mental health issues. The third was only shot when he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse. The background was that Kenosha police had abandoned parts of their city, and left it to the citizens to defend property from being stolen or destroyed by rioters. 2A02:1406:33:7DD8:1165:EB68:1DA:C837 (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The section should probably be removed. Looking at the sources we have NPR which doesn't mention TPUSA. The other sources are marginal to establish weight. Mentioning the charges without mentioning that he was acquitted is a BLP problem. Given the weak sources and BLP issue as well as the very limited value of the paragraph (why is this DUE? Are we trying to lead the reader to a conclusion? This isn't presented as supporting evidence for a larger picture item). Given all that I would say remove it. Springee (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Springee, Looking at the information presented I can abide the removal of the "YWLS" section where there is mention of Kyle Rittenhouse. I would add though that we should maybe keep that first sentence that describes the YWLS conference and maybe use it in some capacity in the "annual summits" section (above the said YWLS section), since it is a good descriptor for that particular event. MaximusEditor (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth noting YWLS somewhere but is it a stand out meeting or just one of many? I certainly wouldn't oppose inclusion in general but the content we have here is not encyclopedic. Springee (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even with the "acquittal" changes, I'm still thinking just removing Rittenhouse completely by wiping away the section as a whole and just adding in the summary of YWLS in "Annual Summits" section would improve the article the most. MaximusEditor (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Llll5032, your edit was a nice improvement. I still think the whole section could go since it doesn't seem like DUE content but you addressed the biggest issue. As for removing the whole section, the sources are marginal and their intent seems to be to highlight the comment about Rittenhouse (vs any other thing said at the conference). When I see coverage like that it suggests the authors are going for the click bait angle. Not surprising given how much media is driven by getting eyes on the page to sell adds. You can either try to win that game with good articles or you can win with click bait/outrage baiting. Yes, the material was covered but absent the click bait part, is there anything else worth covering. I agree with the idea of summarizing that the YWLS exists and what it's general topics are. However, when it comes to encyclopedic content, stuff that would pass the 10 year test, I don't see this as important. Anyway, with the recent edit I see less need to remove the whole thing but I would still support such a change. I don't see previous discussions establishing weight for inclusion. Springee (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Springee. Rittenhouse was also noted for being featured by Turning Point at America Fest in 2021,[1][2] which may establish more WEIGHT for him being in this article. Llll5032 (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that the sources are not strong enough to support keeping the information regarding Kyle Rittenhouse. The section is about the Young Womens Leadership Summit, not about Kyle Rittenhouse being acquitted of murder charges. Him making an appearance does not warrant additional sourcing to prove WP:WEIGHT if we are doing that we know it is WP:UNDUE. Let's just remove the Rittenhouse material as well as the YWLS section and just pop the singular sentence that describes YWLS into the "Annual summit" section. I'm in full support of this change. MaximusEditor (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The cited Business Insider article mentions Rittenhouse's acquittal, so that could be added in a few words. Llll5032 (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the NPR source was added to support the acquittal. I'm just not sure that any of this is due given the low quality sources that we are citing to begin with. Springee (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
