Talk:Turning Point USA

1964 Civil Rights Act and Martin Luther King Jr section
Just removed the first sentence from "1964 Civil Rights Act and Martin Luther King Jr." section. The removed content was only applicable to Charlie Kirk, no relevance to TPUSA (As well as being from an Esquire WP:RSOPINION source as well as the quoted info was only found in the WP:HEADLINE. I'm concerned that the rest of the section isn't really relatable to TPUSA either, I mean the remainder of the information in said section discusses comments made by Kirk, one being made at Americafest.  To clarify, just because Charlie Kirk made a comment at Americafest about MLK, it doesn't warrant inclusion on the TPUSA article.  Coverage of the remark is singularly sourced and is not notable (A more and more common trait to this article).  The remainder of the information in the section is not significant information either(Kirk previously liking MLK as well as TPUSA selling MLK T-shirts online are not notable).  I think we should remove the rest of the section it doesn't really belong in this article. Eruditess (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm skeptical of this reasoning; when articles about the founding leader of an organization expressing extreme views also draw attention to the leader's organization, I think it seems ok for at least a single sentence mention in organization's article.
 * There is certainly more than one source in existence that makes this connection too. Just came here after reading several articles about it. I may not get around to adding it but wanted to express skepticism publicly. toobigtokale (talk) 21:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your input, I would challenge the idea that there are lots of quality reliable sources covering Kirk's remarks, and that Kirk's remarks are as you said "extreme views".
 * When I did a google search of "Charlie Kirk Civil Rights", The first article is a WP:GREL Wired.com article, (It's the one sole cited article in the problematic Civil Rights section currently referencing one relatable fact; that Kirk made the remarks at the TPUSA Americafest event). The following google search results were a litany of either articles that directly cited the Wired.com article as their source and/or were opinion pieces.  With all the sources being opinion pieces and/or based off the only reliable article that is already included here, I can't agree with you that there is a lot of quality coverage from reputable sources.
 * As for the idea that he holds "extreme views", I think that since it doesn't actually state anywhere in the RS that his views are extreme inferring that they are extreme would be original research/WP:SYNTH. Kirk had opinions about MLK jr. -“MLK was awful,” Kirk said. “He's not a good person. He said one good thing he actually didn't believe.”  He has opinions about the Civil Rights acts. Saying “We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s.” I stand beside my previous statements above, the section has nothing to do with TPUSA, I can't entertain the idea that Kirk's quotes are extreme views and that it improves the TPUSA article in any way. Eruditess (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I added NBC News, another WP:GREL source. Llll5032 (talk) 04:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Adding this NBC article just supports my argument for removal off this page even further.
 * The basis of this discussion is that the "1964 Civil Rights Act and Martin Luther King Jr" section is about Charlie Kirk's remarks regarding the section subject matter, which has zero relevance to TPUSA. This NBC article doesn't make any connection for the comments made about MLK/Civil Rights acts and TPUSA.  It does however highlight that the comments were made on Charlie Kirks PodCast, separate entity from TPUSA. Llll5032, can you justify how an article saying Kirk made comments on his personal podcast belongs on TPUSA article?
 * Your addition of: "Some Republicans criticized racial comments by Kirk amidst conflicts in early 2024 between Turning Point and Republican Party leaders." is breaching WP:SYNTH, it doesn't state that Republican party leaders had issue with TPUSA anywhere in the article. The article does say that Darrel Scott "expressed concerns" to Trump about Kirks comments (the ones made on his podcast), that is it. Eruditess (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The NBC article, which names Turning Point 18 times, cites disputes with various Republicans about Ronna McDaniel, an app, and Kirk's conduct and comments. Llll5032 (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * In those 18 times Turning Point was mentioned, there is not any mention or connection from those Republicans making criticism of Kirk with TPUSA? That is why you trying to add a sentence in the article that there was, when there isn't is SYNTH. You took two separate facts:
 * 1)That Charlie Kirk made comments on his podcast about MLK jr and the Civil rights act.
 * 2)That some republicans think that some funds that went to TPUSA could have been funds that could have been put towards the republican party.
 * These two facts are different form eachother.
 * The information about Ronna McDaniel talks about her meeting with Trump and asking him if he was aware of his comments from Kirk's pod cast? -- No mention of TPUSA.
 * The app is mentioned about Tyler Bowyer and in connection to Turning Point Action -- No mention of TPUSA
 * Kirk's conduct and comments... From his pod cast -- no mention of TPUSA.
 * Can you show me where in the NBC article it states TPUSA is under pressure because of Kirks comments... I think that is what you are trying to interpret from the article.
 * Just copy and paste the quote that links the two. Eruditess (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The short sentence you removed said, "Some Republicans criticized racial comments by Kirk amidst conflicts in early 2024 between Turning Point and Republican Party leaders." It follows the emphasis of the NBC article, which has examples of Kirk's racial comments and also the Turning Point spokesperson acknowledging the conflict with the RNC: "When you take on the RNC, you’re bound to make a few enemies,” Andrew Kolvet, a Turning Point spokesperson, said, adding the organization was “warned” in recent weeks “to brace for” Kirk and the group to take hits “as a parting shot from the old guard at the RNC. Later in the article, the same Turning Point spokesperson also makes a statement defending Kirk. Llll5032 (talk) 04:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm confused by your claim that there is supposedly no connection whatsoever between a group's founding leader and his group. Articles that discuss this event very frequently mention his role in TPUSA. toobigtokale (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are saying that reliable articles discuss Kirk's role, then you can put whatever is said about his role in the article. If you can find WP:RS articles that make a direct connection for as you said, "the founding leader of an organization expressing extreme views also draw attention to the leader's organization", put it in by all means. But I can't find any actual quote from the cited sources that say there is a connection (the word "extreme views" isn't even printed in the source), that is a determination you made after reading the article.  There is coverage about Kirk critiquing MLK jr. and the civil rights act on his podcast, but to make an editorial choice to say in this TPUSA wiki article that because he made comments on his podcast, it is affecting the organization would be SYNTH - ("do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.") it just isn't stated in any reliable article. Eruditess (talk) 03:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is saying there's no connection between a group's founding leader and his group. The question at hand is whether or not Kirk's comments should be put on Turning Point USA's page. Comments made on Kirk's podcast seem far more fitting to be put on his own page, rather than this organization, especially considering that The Charlie Kirk Show is not part of Turning Point USA (as his page even states). I'd agree this section should be removed but the comments by Kirk be put on his own page. AstralNomad (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Someone is saying that. "The removed content was only applicable to Charlie Kirk, no relevance to TPUSA"
 * I'm not engaging much more with this topic because it's not a high priority for me, but my skepticism about this has not changed. toobigtokale (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's pretty simple and straight forward, if the information added to an article directly pertains to subject of the article (in this case TPUSA) then add it, if not keep it out. There has been previous discussion on this talk page (When Charlie Kirk was being split out to his own article) that set precedence that stuff that he says or does as head of TPUSA should be listed here and stuff that he says as his own personal opinions or rants belong on his personal page. I think there was an issue with editors clogging this page with every single provocative thing Kirk said and so it has been addressed.  Move the MLK and civil race comments to his page.  Keep Kirk's personal views off this page. MaximusEditor (talk) 07:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * For WP:DUEWEIGHT the decision should be based on how much the cited RS say about Turning Point. If Turning Point is named with substantial context in the reliable source, then the source is likely to belong in this article. Turning Point is named 18 times in the NBC article and 7 times in the Wired article, so they appear to be DUE. Llll5032 (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Llll5032, DUEWEIGHT says "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those source". The keyword here is "viewpoints".  Not "words".  The word "Turning Point" alone isn't a viewpoint, therefore a word use count per this NBC article has no relevance in a section labeled "1964 Civil Rights Act and Martin Luther King Jr section", specifically in this case unless there is a sentence that contains both Turning Point and "Civil Rights Act" and/or "MLK Jr".  There is not. Not once is there anywhere in the NBC article that references Turning Point USA and anything to do with the Civil Rights Act and/or MLK Jr.  Therefore to include it in this article as such would be WP:SYNTH.  Trying to use this NBC article to give weight to somehow link comments Charlie Kirk made to TPUSA is flat out false and out of context. DUEWEIGHT is only applicable with correct context. Having said that, does it belong on Charlie Kirk's personal page. Yes absolutely.
 * WP:CONTEXTMATTERS says " The reliability of a source depends on context. 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." & " Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article". Talking about how many times the word "TPUSA" is used is void of context period.
 * Also we can refer to WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE, which states " Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what the sources express or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources." " Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article".
 * Now the NBC article does have context with comments made on Charlie Kirk's podcast. "As Turning Point USA flourishes, Kirk simultaneously has another venture that is making waves throughout the right — his podcast. A Turning Point spokesperson provided NBC News with internal data showing that it is being downloaded between 500,000 and 750,000 times each day. It’s ranked No. 13 on Apple Podcasts for news." Information about comments made on Kirk's podcast belongs on Charlie Kirk's personal page. TPUSA article is not improved by quoting Kirk's podcast comments.  Removing the content and moving it over to Charlie's personal page is a great compromise based in previous discussion and precedence on this talk page.  I will be removing the content and moving it over to Kirk's page. MaximusEditor (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that information needs to stick to the emphasis of cited sources per WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Because at least one of the WP:BESTSOURCES, NBC, describes the racial comments in the context of Turning Point's conflict with the RNC and McDaniel, perhaps the information could be better included in a chronology of the group instead of specifically a civil rights section. Llll5032 (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Additional WP:GREL sources have described Turning Point's part in the successful effort to oust McDaniel and its conflicts with some Republicans this year, which were in the sentence that was deleted. Llll5032 (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Turning Point has no direct association with the RNC or the Republican Party because they are a non-profit. TPUSA is a 501c3 organization, and the IRS states that such organizations are prohibited from "directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office."
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)(3)_organization
 * https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/the-restriction-of-political-campaign-intervention-by-section-501c3-tax-exempt-organizations#:~:text=Under%20the%20Internal%20Revenue%20Code,candidate%20for%20elective%20public%20office.
 * TPUSA has an obvious conservative agenda, but saying that the organization is tied with the RNC is an incorrect statement and would be against the law for them to do so. If Charlie Kirk is making comments about the RNC, the Republican party, or making endorsements of a political candidate, that is his own personal belief and cannot be representative of TPUSA itself. These respective Wikipedia pages should reflect that difference. AstralNomad (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Do any of the secondary RS describing the conflict over McDaniel address that question? Llll5032 (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * TPUSA can't make political statements and can't get into "conflicts" with the RNC. This is common sense. However, Turning Point Action can, that is why we have a separate article for information pertaining to Turning Point Action. You do not want to put erroneous information on this article that could confuse readers into thinking TPUSA was breaching its non-profit 501(c)(3) status.
 * From the AP article you linked/cited the author of the article does not make it clear that the "Restoring National Confidence" event (which is the reference between the vague "Turning Point" and the RNC" in the article) was hosted by TPACTION. Which is cleared up by this Politco article which gives correct context.  With that correct context, any information you want to include about Turning Point being in conflict with the RNC belongs on the Turning Point Action page not here and any information that pertains to comments made on Charlie Kirk's podcast belong on his personal article also not here. So I'll be removing the "Civil rights act/MLK" section and moving the content over to Kirk's page. MaximusEditor (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As you acknowledge, RS often do not make the distinction between the groups that you are making. Even in the Politico source you cite favorably, the naming is mostly "Turning Point", for example: "Turning Point, the youth-oriented advocacy group founded by Charlie Kirk, the conservative activist radio show host with a massive following, has long been one of the sharpest thorns in the RNC’s side." Editors were divided about making a separate Turning Point Action article in 2021 because of the interconnectedness of the groups. But the creator of the article agreed that "Naturally there is overlap between these two orgs, and I'm definitely for keeping any notable occurrences of overlap on TPUSA", and no editors at that article's talk page, which has included you, have yet disagreed there. Llll5032 (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As you acknowledge, RS often do not make the distinction between the groups that you are making. Even in the Politico source you cite favorably, the naming is mostly "Turning Point", for example: "Turning Point, the youth-oriented advocacy group founded by Charlie Kirk, the conservative activist radio show host with a massive following, has long been one of the sharpest thorns in the RNC’s side." Editors were divided about making a separate Turning Point Action article in 2021 because of the interconnectedness of the groups. But the creator of the article agreed that "Naturally there is overlap between these two orgs, and I'm definitely for keeping any notable occurrences of overlap on TPUSA", and no editors at that article's talk page, which has included you, have yet disagreed there. Llll5032 (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Tyler Bowyer
As there is currently no Wikipedia article for Tyler Bowyer, this article's sub-section about him is therefore the closest alternative, and already contains assorted biographical information about Bowyer; thus information about him shouldn't be delegated to other articles (e.g. Turning Point Action). It also seems disingenuous to insist on a separation between TPUSA and TPAas one is the parent of the other. Brad (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree. RS say he is both a "Turning Point USA executive" and chief operating officer of Turning Point Action, so the information should be in both articles. Llll5032 (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Nothing disingenuous about accuracy, TPUSA is not the "Parent" company of Turning Point Action, some people label them as "sister" organizations because Charlie Kirk was at the helm for both of them and they share the "Turning Point" in the name, but one does not have any oversight over the other. Legally TPUSA couldn't have oversight over TPAction, one is a 501(c)3 and TPAction is a 501(c)4. I can understand WP:GOODFAITH assumptions that they are more than that, it is confusing with the same branding in the name. But unless there is specific notation in RS that states both TPUSA & TPAction both were involved in something, it would be irresponsible and just plain false/WP:SYNTH to try and blend the two as one entity on this article. MaximusEditor (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * MaximusEditor, If RS specifically name Turning Point USA about an incident in question, then it is never synthesis or original research to say exactly what they say. Perhaps you could ask the No Original Research board about this question, if the answers from editors here do not suffice for you. Llll5032 (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not challenge any reliable content being sourced that specifically names TPUSA and TPAction in relation to an incident be removed from this article. It isn't up to editors to decide that two legally separate organizations  (a 501(c)3 non profit & and a 501(c)4 non-profit) are some how interchangeable.  Therefore if a reliable source/article does not expressly state complicit action from TPUSA in a TPAction incident, it does not belong in this article. A description of relation doesn't imply complicity either, if an article says TPAction is the sister organization of TPUSA (and that is the only mention of TPUSA in that article), there isn't enough weight to add it into this article. That would set a dangerous precedence and confuse readers into blatantly inaccurate conclusions. MaximusEditor (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You're not being accurate, you're splitting hairs by insisting on an unverifiable separation between TPUSA and TPA. They have common leadership. They have the same logo and typeface. Pointing out that TPUSA can't "have oversight" of TPA is the entire reason that action committees like TPA exist in the first place.
 * From WaPo: "...Turning Point Action, the campaign arm of Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA..."
 * AZ Central: "...Turning Point Action, the nonprofit’s campaign arm."
 * Brad (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * TPUSA on its "staff" page from Dec 21 2020 lists Bowyer as its COO, so it is outright lying to say he was not an officer of TPUSA when he fake electored.
 * TPUSA on its "Tyler Bowyer" page from Dec 7 2021 says he became COO of TPUSA and "In 2019, he ALSO took on the role of COO of Turning Point Action"
 * I don't understand how 2 organizations which are not allowed to coordinate can share the same officers.
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20201221082711/https://www.tpusa.com/staff
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20211207211301/https://www.tpusa.com/tylerbowyer 74.109.243.144 (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose because Tyler Bower does not meet Notability even with his indictment, as he has not received significant coverage from independent, reliable sources outside of the indictment and being COO of TPUSA. Charlie Kirk does merit his own article (WP:GNG), as he received has received significant coverage from participating in the 2020 RNC and for his controversial views on political issues.
 * As another example, many involved in January 6th who were indicted also don't meet WP:GNG; only the top leaders of the involved organizations or those who received significant sentences & coverage merited their own article. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 23:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Splitting proposal (Tyler Bowyer)
I am proposing (After advocating for a long time that the Bowyer section be trimmed to keeping only content relevant to TPUSA) that Tyler Bowyer get a split out from this article. We can keep relevant well sourced content, such as when he was COO of TPUSA under the leadership section) however there is much material under his section that simply is irrelevant/out of scope to TPUSA and with lots of editors expressing that he is notable enough for inclusion we should give him his own article at this point, he has enough sourced material to sustain a lone article. Some content not relevant to this article was added due to this being the "Closest alternative" which isn't adequate enough for inclusion when we can simply create an article where no "alternative" is necessary. (I don't know how to ping the IP editor) MaximusEditor (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Tyler Bowyer is a current and longstanding Turning Point USA executive, so any reliable sources mentioning both Bowyer and Turning Point can be considered in scope and relevant for this article. He may merit his own article, per WP:GNG, but if he does, it should not be a split from this article. RS that mention both Turning Point and Bowyer should not be excluded based on the possibility of Bowyer having his own article. Llll5032 (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Support- Nothing would be excluded from this article that merits association with Turning Point USA.

I am confused as to why Llll5032 linked two articles about Bowyer being indicted that only mention TPUSA solely as a passing reference ("reference" being defined as - "the use of a source of information in order to ascertain something.) for his tenure of employment. Maybe you can clarify?  Not in any form do any of the cited articles imply TPUSA had some sort of implication with the indictment. Some of the cited reliable sources discuss his position as a State committeeman in the Republican National Committee as being directly associated with his indictment. We need to move that information over  onto the RNC page. Having unrelated info on the indictment could confuse readers into thinking that TPUSA could be in some way attached and that would be false.  I think some editors, albeit in good faith are mistaking reference for scope. When you are arguing that non-associated information regarding the topic of this article (TPUSA) merits inclusion because of a single "mention" in an reliable source just for reference, you are inherently going WP:OFFTOPIC.

Via OffTopic policy page-

"If you are wandering off-topic, consider placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with that topic. If you provide a link to the other article, readers who are interested in the side topic have the option of digging into it, but readers who are not interested will not be distracted by it."

That perfectly describes our exact use-case scenario. Off topic information that belongs in a different article.

For an example of reference:

Lets say a well known actor that was previously on a popular tv show (we will call this show "X") got a D.U.I. Would we put that information onto that "X" TV show's article if the journalist made one reference such as; "actor" previously known for his role on the popular "X" TV Show got a DUI. The answer is no. Now if the article went into detail about how filming schedule's were altered for "X"'s filming, or if a show runner had to replace that actor because of the DUI, then it has WP:SCOPE, it is on topic. It has association. It would merit inclusion onto "X" tv show's article. But that is not what is happening here in this article about Tyler Bowyer.

Having said that, the only information that is associated directly with TPUSA would be his tenure as COO, that is it. The info about where he attended college, the info about Students for Trump breaking from Turning Point ACTION (Belongs on TPAction article), the info about being in the the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the info about the indictment. These things have no association with TPUSA. But I can see that some editors feel like this information is notable, notable enough to keep on Wikipedia. So let us put it in a much more accurate location, an article about Bowyer. And/or the infor about the indictment can also be placed in the RNC article.

Via DividedFrame in the above talk page discussion discussing why the most recent non-associated TPUSA information was put here anyways:

there is currently no Wikipedia article for Tyler Bowyer, this article's sub-section about him is therefore the closest alternative, and already contains assorted biographical information about Bowyer; thus information about him shouldn't be delegated to other articles.

This reasoning was only sufficient enough for a temporary place holder for the added information. Now it is time to create a Tyler Bowyer article and to move  non-related information there. Indictment info can go on both his page and the RNC article. MaximusEditor (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. l agree with splitting Tyler Bowyer from the page and putting all notable activity he has done on his own page rather than Turning Point USA's, provided the actions performed are not representative of the company.
 * I don't understand why exactly an employee should have such a substantial amount of content on his employer's page that includes actions he performed outside his duties with that employer. Along those same lines, just because a reliable source describes Bowyer as an employee of Turning Point USA in an article about his actions (the fake electors indictment, for example) does not mean that Turning Point USA is involved with those actions. Rather, it is the news outlet providing more background. I agree with the metaphor MaximusEditor used and the fact that the inclusion of events on the page of an organization that was not directly involved is just unethical editing and a dishonest service to any reader who clicks on the page.
 * Splitting Bowyer from the page can also help clear some obvious confusion with Turning Point USA and Turning Point Action. Even several WP:RS that have been cited in the past on this page appear to have issued corrections as they themselves have failed to make this distinction in their coverage. From sources that have been provided by some editors in the past, along with additional research, it is evident that these two organizations are separate entities, but share obvious similarities in both their names and the fact that Charlie Kirk founded both of them. Nonetheless, this distinction needs to be more clear, as it would be unfair to Turning Point USA to attribute actions to them on their Wikipedia page that they did not perform.
 * Bowyer appears to be a prominent voice in conservative politics both at a state and national level, and could be described as notable enough to warrant his own page under WP:SIGCOV in the WP:GNG.
 * Bowyer's previous tenure with Turning Point USA and what titles he held should stay on the leadership page, although with an accurate timeline. Any other actions by Bowyer, both the fake elector scandal and all future actions that he does in his own time, should definitely not be on the Turning Point USA page. This does not seem to be an appropriate practice for organization's pages on Wikipedia, and I don't see any other pages that do this. AstralNomad (talk) 01:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note - After reverting | this edit, (Removing more non-TPUSA related content regarding Tyler Bowyer's involvement in the fake elector scandal.) It is blatantly obvious that this is just becoming the place where editors are dumping any/all information regarding Tyler Bower. (One of the cited articles didn't even mention Bowyer, and the reliable NBC article cited did not mention TPUSA in the article, *It did mention TPAction). At this moment the discussion to move all non-related content over to a newly created Tyler Bowyer article is ongoing, but in the meantime I will be moving strictly the information regarding the indictment over to the actual Wikipedia page dedicated to the investigation/court case as that is the most accurate and efficient place to put it and as stated in the discussion above TPUSA has no involvement with the scandal. MaximusEditor (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I restored a short version of the content you removed, to note for the sake of fairness that Bowyer pleaded not guilty. NBC's naming of Turning Point Action (often described as TPUSA's campaign arm), in addition to the other current sources' description of Boyer as an executive of Turning Point USA, should be sufficient for due weight and relevance for this use. Llll5032 (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Llll5032, prior consensus on this talk page is that TPAction and TPUSA are separate entities and the only way you can include TPAction content on this article is if there is specific language used in the cited sources that TPUSA was involved in the outlined content as well. That is why the TPAction article was split out to begin with.  Posting a quote from a single editor who opposed the split on the TPAction talk page does not make the fact it was split out untrue.  It was talked about and it was split out because consensus was reached they are not to be treated as one entity. Blending the two organizations is righting great wrongs, its not factual and it is not true. Ignoring that consensus is a form of Stone walling. Please stop reverting removed content that does not contain that specific language.
 * Via WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS policy page-
 * " Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. So, if you want to:
 * Explain what you are sure is the truth of a current or historical, political, religious, or moral issue on Wikipedia, you'll have to wait until it's been reported by reliable sources or published in books from reputable publishing houses. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. Wikipedia doesn't lead; we follow. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. Finding neutral ways of presenting them is what we do. "
 * We have discussed that if the WP:BESTSOURCES are calling TPAction "TPUSA's campaign arm" then you are welcome to put that exact phrase into this article, but you still have lacked supplying this talk page with any RS stating they are factually more than just shared branding. Please do share any articles if you have found anything otherwise, I have requested that from you many times. If you can provide RS stating such, it would establish verifiability, but until then it is OR. MaximusEditor (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I added a RS that names TPUSA directly, in hopes of resolving that issue to your satisfaction. Llll5032 (talk) 03:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is just another article that states that Bowyer worked for TPUSA. I am asking you to explain how you justify an article saying-
 * "Tyler Bowyer, Turning Point USA internet personality" as implicating TPUSA to a legal court case? I'm serious, please explain.
 * I asked you to provide RS that implicates TPUSA with the Arizona fake elector hearing. You can't provide anything, you keep giving us random articles with zero relevance. We already have RS stating his tenure as COO of TPUSA. This article is just redundant in verifying the fact that Tyler once worked for TPUSA.  No, this does not meet any aspect that policy states is necessary for that content to meet inclusion criteria.  It is still WP:OFFTOPIC and is much better served in the articles I mentioned above. @Llll5032. Please remove the article you cited, it serves no purpose. MaximusEditor (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are concerned that mentioning the indictment of Bowyer, its COO, unjustly implicates TPUSA as a group, then perhaps some brief and reliably sourced explanation could be added to clarify in what capacity Bowyer was charged. Also, you may be overly personalizing this disagreement; note that several other editors also contributed to the content you are disputing, and some discussed the matter in the preceding Tyler Bowyer section in talk. I removed another editor's source that named Turning Point Action instead of TPUSA to further address your OR concern. Llll5032 (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is a WP:NEWSBLOG, but this article discusses how the indictment could affect TPUSA. There may be better sources citable. Llll5032 (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * MaximusEditor, because two more editors have contributed to the content (@Soibangla and Speakfor23), in addition to two IPs and the editors you pinged, it is likely that a majority of editors would oppose removing. Perhaps other editors who contributed will discuss. Llll5032 (talk) 03:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I was hoping DividedFrame would come discuss, as his edit summary reasoning for dumping unrelated content was that there was simply no where better to put it. As you can see I have tried to remedy that reasoning with creating a Tyler Bowyer article creation process.  Only you have rejected that proposal so far.  I have also tried to remedy the issue of unrelated material by listing several policies (Such as WP:OFFTOPIC) that accurately define/outline the use-case of the information regarding the indictment of Tyler Bowyer through his activity and time being a committeman at the RNC, and supplied two articles to relocate the information that actually have relevancy.  Those two articles are the RNC wiki article  and the Arizona prosecution of fake electors article.  Unless those new invited editors can provide RS that indicate TPUSA was somehow involved in this fake electors scandal, then it remains as it is, TPUSA has zero involvement.  The RNC does. I don't see how editors weighing in without stating any kind of policy can produce any more consensus for inclusion per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS. Consensus is rooted in policy and the participation of trying to reach a compromise.  What defense for inclusion of non-related material do you have that is rooted in any Wikipedia policy? MaximusEditor (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Llll5032 Just because two editors and two IPs contributed to this page in some capacity does not mean they agree with you in your stance on splitting. Saying they "likely" agree with you when they have not engaged in this conversation on the talk page, even after you tagged them, is not sufficient. We need explicit contributions of either supporting or opposing to determine course of action, as WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS states.
 * You are the only editor who has opposed in this split proposal section despite the current majority agreeing that the content on this page about Bowyer are WP:OFFTOPIC and should be put in a more appropriate place, which arguably would be a dedicated page for Bowyer. Other editors have been free to provide input but have not. As of right now, while I am WP:AGF, your comments appear to be WP:STONEWALLING.
 * The amount of controversy on this talk page and the edits that have occurred make it very obvious that Bowyer needs to be split to adequately cover the events that have transpired. No one is disagreeing with the validity of the content being added about Bowyer's actions, and no one on this talk page has argued to remove it entirely from Wikipedia. Rather, it appears obvious that it is not appropriate for an employee's actions to be on the page of his employer when that company was not directly involved. This is the page for TPUSA and should only have things on it relating to the organization, its actions, its rhetoric, etc. Plus, Wikipedia already has a page regarding the Trump fake electors plot and the Arizona prosecution of fake electors.
 * Again, I'm going to WP:AGF, but the aggressive desire to keep this content on TPUSA's page despite no WP:RS saying TPUSA played a direct role in these scandals seems personally motivated and has not been supported by any Wikipedia policy.
 * As of now, this split should go forward and you should be willing to let that happen unless you or other editors can provide more concrete examples of Wikipedia policy that contradict that consensus. if consensus ends up changing, and it is determined that Bowyer should not be split due to arguments regarding WP:GNG, any content on this page regarding Bowyer that does not directly involve TPUSA still needs to be removed and put on a page more appropriate. Again, this is the page for TPUSA and we have obviously wandered completely WP:OFFTOPIC. AstralNomad (talk) 07:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Although 6 editors (4 registered editors including me, and 2 IPs) added content since April 25 that you and MaximusEditor are disputing, I agree that article contributions and statements in the Tyler Bowyer discussion above do not count for a "vote" in this section. Perhaps more editors will comment in this section. Llll5032 (talk) 04:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Llll5032, the editors that added the content did not come to discuss the topic of inclusion even when pinged because they can not counter the logic/policy outlined here on the talk page or simply did not care. The information about Tyler Bowyer and the indictment/fake electors does not belong on this page.  There are zero sources linking TPUSA to anything Bowyer did regarding election activity. Any argument for inclusion is weak. According to WP:ONUS:
 * "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
 * It is clear from this discussion that ONUS is not met for inclusion. It needs to be removed/moved to maybe a better more suitable article which the other editors have outlined. Eruditess (talk) 06:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is clear from this discussion that ONUS is not met for inclusion. It needs to be removed/moved to maybe a better more suitable article which the other editors have outlined. Eruditess (talk) 06:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Support per nom and User:MaximusEditor. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Support same as above sentiments. I would say the only relevant information about Bowyer is that he was COO of TPUSA, nothing else belongs. Seems like rough consensus has been achieved. Someone can close this discussion. Please notify me if any editors need assistance with changes.TomaHawk61 (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

So as of now I have removed the non-related Bowyer content off the page as well as removed the split proposal banner at the top of this article.MaximusEditor (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)