Talk:Turning Point USA/Archive 3

June 2020 edits to the lead
There is some back and ford regarding the removal of this material from the lead:
 * In December 2017, former employees of the organization accused it of engaging in racist practices, as well as potentially illegal involvement in the 2016 presidential election.[10] The Anti-Defamation League refers to TPUSA as an "alt-lite" organization. CBS News has described the organization as a far-right organization that is "shunned or at least ignored by more established conservative groups in Washington, but embraced by many Trump supporters".[11]

The material does not appear related to the above RfC thus I do not see merit in the claims that it should remain for the duration of the RfC. However, it is long standing so WP:CON requires establishing a consensus for removal. At this time I have no opinion on keep or remove. Ping involved editors. Springee (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC) :WP:ONUS applies here given the WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE BLP concerns linking Lambert to Kirk. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove - I have already provided my views. Atsme Talk 📧 18:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC) See "Important note" below 18:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Adding - I filed the following case Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Turning Point USA prior to this RfC. My reasons for noncompliance are spelled out in that discussion, and I would think that the noncompliance with WP:BLPGROUP should first be determined at BLPN before anything can be finalized here. Atsme Talk 📧 13:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Important note - the BLPN archived discussion without a formal close, but there is obvious consensus that the allegations of racism should be removed. To include the allegation of racist practices that does not meet the sourcing requirements specified in the policy WP:REDFLAG would be a blatant BLP violation. I am pinging the editors who commented at BLPN who have not already commented here:, , . I also believe that since we are discussing a rather obvious BLP violation, a formal determination needs to be made as to confirm that it is indeed a BLP vio. To include that challenged material without satisfying WP:REDFLAG (also see footnote 9) and WP:ONUS will result in its removal. Atsme Talk 📧 18:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, where is Lambert in the above text? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I was responding to the wrong text/notice trigger. I'll strike. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I contributed to the back and forth and erroneously reverted BMK, having relied on the edit summaries and the conflated RFC discussion about the disputed content. I didn't realise the error until I was reverted by Nomoskedasticity.. As for this pertinent paragraph, there should be more citations for the first and second sentence to satisfy WP:REDFLAG, which should be easily found.Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Remove Atsme makes several strong points, I agree this needs to deleted from the Lede. MaximusEditor (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What Wikipedia policy do you base the removal of political descriptors by reliable sources on? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The lead already does an inadequate job of summarizing the content of the article. The best approach would not be to remove this, but to add to it until it actually summarizes the article -- then we can talk about how to word it. As it sounds like at least one of the participants in the back and forth was doing so erroneously, this section may be moot? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 20:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, it all seems well sourced and moderately phrased. If the argument is that it isn't proportional to the body then perhaps the relevant sections in the body should be expanded. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep CBS far-right, reliable source. ADL "alt lite" is opinion, that's a due weight question, not sure either way. New Yorker? Maybe not so much, though it is Jane Mayer, who is highly regarded, it's not an op-ed, and the use of racist memes is well documented later. A better reflection of their engagement in casual racism might well be possible -= from what I have seen they are not ardent racists but they are 100% on the "all lives matter" train. Guy (help!) 10:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove all. The New Yorker claim and the ADL designation belong in the article but not in the lede. The CBS piece is barely an article (it feels almost like a caption) and barely calls the organisation "far-right": that is in the body of the article, but it got changed to "conservative" in the heading. StAnselm (talk) 11:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We go by the body of an article, not by the headline, which is not written by the writer of the article but by an editor, and in which words can be changed for any number of reasons, including space. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * But if the headline were changed by an editor that at least hints that "far-right" is the opinion of the writer, and not CBS's editorial position. StAnselm (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * , see WP:HEADLINE. Guy (help!) 15:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * But do you see, I'm going in the opposite direction here. I'm talking about the reliability of the article. Interestingly, in this case the headline is less sensational. We might have expected "far right" in the headline even if the article had "conservative" - not the other way around. StAnselm (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, well documented; I don't see any BLP concerns in these statements. Perhaps move the bulk into the body, while retaining a shortened version in the lead. But keep either way. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Issues as is, It seems this should be questioned on DUE for the lead. Given the volume of "controversy" type material in the article the lead should definitely have something about the controversial reception the organization has received.  However, if we look at each of the three sentences in question as stand alone items I don't think any one of them should be in the lead.  The lot should be replaced with a sentence or two that summarizes the controversy section of the article.  The first and second sentences could be replaced with something to the effect that the group has been accused of discrimination against minorities (or similar) and has been accused of having associations with "alt-lite" groups.  The first is problematic since we are sourcing something in the lead of the article, not just the body, but the lead, to anonymous sources.  Specifically citing the ADL complaint in the lead is questionable given how short that part of the body is.  The body has just one sentence on the ADL, why would that be DUE for the lead vs some of the other controversial information.  Since I'm suggesting including "alt-lite" in a replacement sentence that would make the ADL's claim of "alt-lite" redundant.  The final sentence might be a reasonable summary of TPUSA's relationship with other conservative groups but if we include it in the lead it needs to basically be across the board true, not true in just a few cases.  Also, the CBS "source" is a blurb.  It doesn't even have an author and certainly should not be used as a source in the lead of an article.  If we can't find a proper example that actually includes the author's name then it's not DUE for the lead (and probably not the body).  I do see the Atsme's concern regarding BLPGROUP.  If the article makes TPUSA and Kirk basically synonymous then accusations of racism against the one would be effectively the same against the other.  I don't think the article is quite at that point but I do think the sentences in question need to be replaced per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY and MOS:LEADREL. Springee (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove all from the lede, But as per MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH requires lede to be NPOV but without being too specific, and WP:REDFLAG exceptional claims ( that being racist practices) requires multiple exceptional sources. Not to mention per WP:REDFLAG claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community have to be prompted with extra caution. Leaving that statement in the lede has a myriad of issues, one being it might give somebody the impression TPUSA is a rascist organization, which would be irresponsible, but also considering some of TPUSAs biggest influencers were pretty diverse, being Candace Owens, Anna Paulina, David J Harris Jr and Rob Smith, that would seem to be very misleading. Maybe some very specific select occurrences happened within the company, but by no means is that WP:DUE justification to put it in the lede. Remove it or at the very least move it down and be very very careful with the wording.EliteArcher88 (talk) 01:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove all I would have to assume this is the very reason why Wikipedia has a guideline like WP:REDFLAG. Eruditess (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , that's not designed to cover instances where the characterization is unambiguous. TPUSA is not even slightly nuanced. It's 100% Trump-train MAGA. Guy (help!) 07:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Several new accounts finding this discussion somehow... &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , weird how that happens. I wonder if they reddit somewhere? Guy (help!) 16:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - it is well phrased and well documented. BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * (comment) I don't know what it means for this discussion to be going on at two places, here & notice board. So I'll put this comment in both places. I feel that WP articles that include the racism within TPUSA is does not violate any WP guidelines. It does not violate WP:BLPGROUP, WP:REDFLAG, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, or any other WP guideline that I can find. TPUSA is large, national organization and I have found no reliable source to support the claim, "Charlie Kirk is synonymous with Turning Point USA." so WP:BLP does not apply and neither does WP:BLPGROUP. Also, from my take, including the racism within TPUSA does not violate WP:REDFLAG, NPOV, or WP:V
 * Below is a short list of sources reporting on the racism within TPUSA:
 * (Newsweek) Trump Praises Conservative Group After Former Member's 'I Hate Black People' Text Surfaces: "i hate black people. Like fuck them all . . . I hate blacks. End of story," Crystal Clanton wrote according to the magazine's report Thursday. " \"Other employees also reportedly stated they felt some racial tension within the organization."
 * (Politico) There is undeniably a racial component to the message often delivered by Turning Point USA .  In a December 22, 2017, story in the New Yorker. In that article, Jane Mayer uncovered two troubling things about the organization. The first was that its No. 2 executive had allegedly once sent a text message stating, “I HATE BLACK PEOPLE. Like fuck them all … I hate blacks. End of story.” The executive, Crystal Clanton, was fired 72 hours after the New Yorker told Kirk about the text message. The issue is tied to Turning Point USA’s founding. Kirk told me—and has said in public several times—that in high school he received a congressional appointment to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, but lost that slot to a different candidate—a person he told me was of “a different ethnicity and gender.”
 * (Azcentral) Gov. Doug Ducey was not aware that conservative group Turning Point USA had faced repeated claims of racism and anti-Semitism when he appeared at its Arizona facility opening earlier this month, he told reporters Thursday ... charges of racism and other forms of bigotry have plagued the group for years, making headlines as the organization's influence has spread.
 * (Conservatives at Washington Examiner report on TPUSA racism) "To make matters worse, TPUSA has a troubling track record with racism.   The group claimed to have taken “decisive action” in removing the employee within 72 hours. But the racism within the organization didn’t stop there. Ironically, Kirk replaced his national field director with someone who had quite a bit of baggage of her own. In since-deleted tweets, the newly hired employee repeatedly used the N-word, bragged that “I love making racist jokes”, and stated that if you are “any other race than white”, she promises to “make racist jokes towards you.” Turning Point’s bad faith engagement goes beyond racial lines."
 * (Even Fox News reports on TPUSA racism): "A prominent Christian pastor and author tearfully apologized this week for liking posts on social media by Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk which were considered racially insensitive."
 * (NYTimes) Mr. Kashuv revealed on Twitter that the university this month rescinded its admission offer over a trail of derogatory and racist screeds.  Kyle Kashucv was high school outreach director for Turning Point USA, a conservative group with ties to the Trump family.
 * (Buzzfeed) Kyle Kashuv stepped down from his role with right-wing group Turning Point USA in May, just before the racist screenshots went public.
 * (USA Today) A viral video clip showing a member of the University of Nevada Las Vegas’s Turning Point USA chapter shouting “white power” and using a white supremacist hand sign has led the conservative group to ban him.
 * (Huffington Post) Turning Point USA Keeps Accidentally Hiring Racists. “I love making racist jokes,” tweeted the woman who replaced the person who wrote, “I HATE BLACK PEOPLE.”
 * (Daily Beast) Conservative Campus Org Turning Point USA ‘Rife’ With Racism, Possibly Illegal Campaign Activity
 * There are many more articles on that highlight the racism within Turning Point USA. I feel that including the racism within TPUSA is does not violate any WP guidelines. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Following is my analysis for each of the sources cited by BetsyRMadison above:
 * Newsweek political spin of the article published in the New Yorker about Clanton, 18 yo at the time, 4 years before she joined TPUSA - guilt by association - no longer with the organization. If TPUSA fought to keep Clanton in the organization, or defended her statements, it would be a completely different story, but that did not happen.
 * POLITICO - more of the same material in the echo chamber stemming from the New Yorker article and it was not the crux of the Politico article. The article also addresses TPUSA directly with the following quote: Doug De Groote, a California financial adviser who is a Turning Point USA advisory council member, told me “There are bad apples in every barrel. I don’t see racism or any of that stuff at all at Turning Point USA.” All the above named violations apply re:BLP & NPOV.
 * AZCentral, owned by Gannett newspaper chain, parent company of USA Today and more than 100 other dailies; the article echoes the same material in the echo chamber including the 2017 New Yorker article, and other clickbait reports about the same 2 incidents. In addition to the policies I already mentioned, I'll add WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:NEWSORG which states Multiple sources should not be asserted for any wire service article. Such sources are essentially a single source. The same applies to conglomerates that comprise the Echo chamber (media).
 * Washington Examiner - per WP:RS/Perennial, "there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims.
 * Fox News - you took that material out of context and cherrypicked the part that supports your POV. It does not accurately represent the controversy. In that article, Jasmine Faith Clisby, a Carver HS teacher, said she isn't "judging him" or "saying he's racist" but "[Hodges] likes someone who posts things that do not seem culturally sensitive to me." Culturally sensitive does not support the allegation that TPUSA is racist or white supremacist. She criticized Kirk for saying white privilege is a myth. Kirk stated in his comment to Fox News that he is "deeply saddened" that he is "being slandered by the mob for stating mainstream pieces of widely-cited data and public information." More of the same cherrypicking phrases, and editorializing in noncompliance with NPOV and BLP.
 * NYTimes article is about Kashucv, not TPUSA which barely gets passing mention in that article; therefore noncompliant WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:LABEL and WP:REDFLAG - we don't use guilt by association. That article states that after Ms. Ali's video drew attention: "Six days later, Mr. Kashuv resigned from Turning Point USA and issued a statement regretting his past comments. Two days later, Harvard inquired about the reports and asked Mr. Kashuv for an explanation. We do not editorialize, speculate, or spin passing mentions of an organization to make it fit a particular POV that is not actually stated. Kashuv apologized for his insensitive statements as a 16 yo, and also paid the price when Harvard denied his admission. Notice how Harvard was also under fire in that article: Harvard has faced other recent criticism for its handling of politically fraught matters. Last month, the university did not renew the appointments of the first two African-American undergraduate faculty deans in the school’s history — both of them law professors...
 * Buzzfeed - again, guilt by association. TPUSA had nothing to do with what 16 yo Kashuv said or did. Very concerning BLP violation as mentioned above.
 * USA Today - echo chamber, see AZCentral above - owned by same conglomerate. This one points to article in Reno Gazette Journal (in the echo chamber) which describes a UNLV student carrying a sign and shouting explitives. TPUSA responded: {{tq|1=“As soon as the video in question came to the attention of Turning Point USA staff, we swiftly and permanently removed the student from any current or future involvement with our organization,” a statement said. “His comments were abhorrent, un-American and disqualifying.”
 * Huff Po - considered marginally reliable per RS/Pernnial so it fails "high quality" and it simply echoes The New Yorker story about the Clanton incident.
 * Daily Beast - per RS:Perennial, Some editors advise caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons. The latter takes it out of "high quality". The 2017 article echoes The New Yorker/Clanton article which I've already explained above.
 * Summary for the above: The list of sources looks impressive at first glance but after analyzing the sources, what you see is classic WP:SYNTH in the presentation which includes cherrypicked phrases from different sources to imply guilt by association, despite the fact that not a single source supports what I properly removed from the lead which is what this RfC is about. I have demonstrated serious policy violations per the above - Kashuv was only 16 yo at the time of his insensitive comments, and in Clanton's case, it happened 4 years before she joined TPUSA. WP:REDFLAG clearly states: {{xt|Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources}}. Some of the sources are misrepresented, others contain sensationalized clickbait opinion, most represent passing mention of TPUSA and are not the crux of the article. I cannot impress upon editors enough that our concerns here should be focused on the unambiguous BLP violations and the ages of the named teenagers per WP:NPF and WP:BLP1E. I fully support BLP policy which states: {{xt|Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.}} Anyone can claim something is "racially insensitive" - it is an opinion - and anyone can say whatever they please in the US per 1st Amendment. As WP editors, we do not repeat opinions and unverifiable allegations in WikiVoice which is why I have been removing material from the lead. BLP requires strict adherence to BLP & NPOV. Another consideration is WP:10YT which carries a lot of weight. The fact that the accused offenders have either quickly left TPUSA on their own or were removed is important, not the attempts to lay guilt on TPUSA by association using SYNTH or weak arguments that are based on media echoing & sensationalism of the same two events, opinions by non-notable people or biased organizations and advocacies. Atsme Talk 📧 15:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

TO Atsme  - this is in reply to your 15:46, 28 June comment to me. The topic of this section is whether you were justified in deleting the edit (in green) at the top of this section. I feel that the the ONUS to restore the edit is satisfied based off of comments in this section & from the reading of the WP guidelines. As for your deletion, on the one hand, you say you deleted edit due REDFLAG; then when you are presented with several, verifiable high-quality RS who report the same thing - which proves there is no REDFLAG - you then complain that the RS can't be used because the multiple RS presented are all reporting the same things. And then when that makes no sense, you claim the RS provided to you can't be used because they do not report on what you deleted -- but they actually do report on what you deleted -- and several RS report that more than just two events of racism were being complained about. In your deleted edit (here you said you deleted due to NPOV, REDFLAG, and BLPGROUP. Now, after being given information that do not support any of those violations, you're now including: POV, BLP, NPF, BLP1E, SYNTH, V, 10YT, UNDUE, misrepresenting RS, guilt by association, cherrypicking, echo chamber, spin, and clickbait. Wow! Those allegations are way, way more than what you first claimed. I have no doubt that you included those additional accusations in good faith. I also feel that as WP editors, we need to be very thoughtful, mindful, and careful when alleging a multitude of violations of guidelines in order to avoid giving any appearance of Gaming the system Your claims of violation do not appear to be accurate; there appear to be no policy violations that I can see.  And there is no guilt by association, no spin, no echo chamber, and no clickbait. I quoted directly from the sources, so you are also mistaken when you claim that I misrepresented the sources.  As for the RS provided to you - you seem to have made erroneous claims of the RS and of my presentation of them: Sorry this comment is so long, but you added way, way more questionable claims of violating policy guidelines than what you originally started off with that needed to be responded to. I feel the ONUS to restore the deleted edit has been satisfied. BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC) {{hab}}
 * There appears to be no violation of REDFLAG & no UNDUE: the TPUSA employees complaining of racism within TPUSA by several different TPUSA officials is well-sourced and covered by multiple high-quality RS as was the allegation of "possible illegal campaign activity" by TPUSA employees saying they were made to work with Ginni Thomas on Republican campaigns in the 2016 election.  I have not found any RS support the claim that the New Yorker article is "spin." I have not found any RS to support the claim that the well-sourced RS articles about TPUSA are "clickbait." Also, I cannot find any WP guideline that says WP editors are to dismiss reports from high-quality RS just because one or two claim the RS headlines are "clickbait"
 * There appears to be  no violation of BLPGroup: the organization, TPUSA, is a large national organization whose so large, that their convention speakers include: the US President,   members of the US Senate, members of the US House,  and whose Board members include the wife of a US Supreme Court Justice, Ginni Thomas. That sure is a pretty dang large national organization.  From what I see, BLPGROUP does not appear to support the claim that if Person A founds or *co-founds & controls the organization; then reporting on the organization's employees complaining in racism & possible illegal campaign activity violates BLP.  In fact, the way I read BLPGROUP, just the opposite is true.
 * There appears to be no violation of BLP: The TPUSA employees complaining of racism within TPUSA and being forced to work on Republican campaigns relate directly to the organization TPUSA (not to Charlie Kirk). Therefore, no BLP violation.  The TPUSA employees complaining of racism within TPUSA have been verified by well-sourced and multiple RS and by several different TPUSA officials.  I found no RS to support the claim "Charlie Kirk is synonymous with TPUSA" so no BLP violation. (And it's a good thing for TPUSA that TPUSA is not synonymous with Charlie Kirk; otherwise, TPUSA would have absolutely violated federal campaign laws when Kirk joined the 2016 Trump campaign & with all of Kirk's other personal activity in Republican campaigns.) The "racially insensitive" writings by TPUSA Director Kyle Kashuv and the racist texts from the then-second-highest TPUSA Official Crystal Clanton do not appear to be an "opinion" - Kashuv, admitted he engaged in racist activities - so it is a fact he admitted to doing and a fact that caused Harvard to reject his application.  So, no BLP violation  Also, I found no WP guideline that says WP editors are to dismiss allegations of racism with an organization (TPUSA) if the TPUSA official, sent racist texts to their fellow TPUSA coworkers - nor if - the old, or young adults TPUSA Directors admit that they did engage in racist activities in their teens, so no BLP violation & no "guilt by association" either."
 * There appears to be no violation SYNTH: The TPUSA employees complained about racism within TPUSA & multiple RS report on that - and that is not SYNTH.
 * There appears to be no violation WP:NPF and WP:BLP1E: Several high-quality RS report that the second-highest official at TPUSA, Crystal Clanton, sent racist text messages to another TPUSA employee (John Ryan O'Rourke); and several RS report that TPUSA's Director of High School Outreach, Kyle Kashuv, admitted he engaged in racist activities.  Both of which are notable material that is relevant to high-quality RS reporting that TPUSA employees complain about racism within TPUSA - so no NPE violation, no BLP1E violation, no BLP violation, no SYNTH, & no REDFLAG.  Also, I cannot find any WP guideline that supports the claim that we have to dismiss the racist activities of TPUSA officials based on age.
 * There appears to be no violation of NPOV, and no violation of WP:V - The edit you deleted is neutral, and does not seem to incorporate any personal prejudice from the editor who included it.
 * There appears to be no violation of 10YT : the TPUSA employees complaining of racism within TPUSA by several different TPUSA officials & employees allegation of "possible illegal campaign activity" by complaining they were made to work with Ginni Thomas on Republican campaigns is noteworthy and relevant about TPUSA - and any other organization for that matter - and will be in 10 years. Hopefully, 10 years from now, TPUSA will no longer have employees making those complaints, but those complaints are still relevant.
 * Newsweek: I find no RS source that supports your claim that the New Yorker piece is "spin."  So, I guess that means the ONUS would be on you to prove "spin." Also, you are mistaken to say that the RS reports about TPUSA employees complaining of racism from TPUSA officials is "guilt by association." Guilt by association, is the "guilt ascribed to someone not because of any evidence, but because of their association with an offender."  However, several RS reports on the evidence of racism from TPUSA officials provided by TPUSA employees complaining about it - that's not 'guilt by association.'
 * Politico - Substantiates the TPUSA employees complaints of racism - and if you think it's a good idea to include the comment from TPUSA advisory board member, then we can discuss that.
 * AZcentral - is a well-established, high-quality news outlet so it does not appear to go under NOTNEWS nor under NEWSORG. Also, the Azcentral piece includes additional allegations of racism within TPUSA & included allegations of antisemitism within TPUSA. So it appears the AZcentral piece does not go under "echo chamber" either.  I find no RS to support your claim that the New Yorker article is "clickbait." So again, I guess that means the ONUS would be on the editor making that claim to prove it is clickbait.  Also, I find no WP guideline that we are to dismiss an RS just because one or two editors claim the headline is "clickbait."
 * Washington Examiner - only included this W.E. piece so as not to be accused of trying to push a POV - but I agree - it's not a reliable source.
 * Fox News - I quoted directly from the article  "A prominent Christian pastor and author tearfully apologized this week for liking posts on social media by Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk which were considered racially insensitive." So no, it is not POV and I did not take it out of context nor cherrypick.
 * New York Times - says Kyle Kashuv is TPUSA's Director of High School Outreach - so no guilt by association, no UNDUE. I quoted directly from the NYT article which says, "Mr. Kashuv revealed on Twitter that the university this month rescinded its admission offer over a trail of derogatory and racist screeds ... He served as the High School Outreach Director for Turning Point USA, a conservative group with ties to the Trump family" -  so there is no violation of NPOV, WEIGHT, LABEL, no SYNTH, no editorializing, no spin, and no POV.  Several other high-quality RS reported the same thing so no REDFLAG & no SYNTH.
 * Buzzfeed - As is the case with NYT: says Kyle Kashuv is TPUSA's Director of High School Outreach - so no guilt by association, no UNDUE, no violation of NPOV, WEIGHT, LABEL, no SYNTH, no editorializing, no spin, and no POV.  Several other high-quality RS reported the same thing so no REDFLAG & no SYNTH.
 * USA Today - is a completely different article discussing completely different things than the AZcentral article. So no "echo chamber." It is just one more high-quality source highlighting the racism within the TPUSA -- so no REDFLAG either.
 * Huffington Post- article reports on the TPUSA employees complaining of racism.  Oh & I used it as a source because I've noticed you, yourself, have used HuffPo as a source on talk pages, so I figured you would not mind me using the same source you do on this talk page.
 * DailyBeast -  a RS that reports on the racism within TPUSA - which shows there is no REDFLAG.
 * Keep, extensively sourced to reliable sources; the breadth and depth of coverage makes it clear that this is an important part of their reputation and of coverage about them. --Aquillion (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - I haven't seen any valid reasons for removing well sourced, DUE material. O3000 (talk) 00:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, except for the "racism"  which does not sem adequately sourced for putting it in such a prominent place. The reset of it seems adequately sourced appropriate summary.   DGG ( talk ) 18:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussions you may be interested in at Talk:Students for Trump
There are discussions you may be interested in at Talk:Students for Trump. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Turning Point USA co-founder dies of coronavirus-related complications
Politico is referring to Bill Montgomery as a co-founder of TPUSA, though he’s only mentioned once in the article. – XYZt (talk  &#124;  contribs) – 04:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Bill Montgomery refered to himself as a "founding board member" on his LinkedIn page prior to his death (https://www.linkedin.com/in/bill-montgomery-50137632/), a ProPublica piece on July 21st refers to Montgomery as a co-founder (https://www.propublica.org/article/at-this-trump-favored-charity-financial-reporting-is-questionable-and-insiders-are-cashing-in), Fox News does so too (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bill-montgomery-co-founder-of-turning-point-usa-dies) as does The Daily Beast (https://www.thedailybeast.com/turning-point-usa-co-founder-bill-montgomery-dies-of-covid-19). Charlie Kirk also wrote a tweet (https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1288158616130740224) saying "Bill Montgomery passed away at 80. He believed in me. He poured his heart & soul & time into me. He took a risk on me and without Bill Montgomery, there is no @TPUSA". Based on this evidence, I think that Montgomery should definitely be mentioned in the article as a founder and I worry that his lack of inclusion is part of an attempt to present 'Turning Point USA' as a grassroots youth movement when it was financed and led from the start by older and wealthier people.Boredintheevening (talk) 10:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

It's interesting that if one searches for Montgomery references prior to July 1, 2020 it seems TPUSA is rarely mentioned. However, after his death many articles call him the co-founder. I suspect that Montgomery should receive some mention in the founding section. I think that should be based on pre-July 2020 articles because it seems the recent ones are repeating the same source claim (regardless of where that claim came from). Sources such as this Atlantic article might provide a better understanding for Montgomery's roll in the organization []. I'm not a fan of Buzzfeednews but this article again provides a bit of insight ]. It seems Montgomery's contribution was a combination if encouragement and early networking. For that reason I think Montgomery is a critical part of the story of the founding but I'm not sure why he would be called a "co-founder". So far as I can tell that seems to be a retrospective assessment. Still, it would be 100% accurate based on the older sources to say Montgomery helped found or was instrumental in Kirk's founding of. BTW, founding board member isn't the same thing as a founder. That means they were part of the organization's initial board of directors. That doesn't make initial board members founders (though they might also be). Springee (talk) 13:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I've created an article Bill Montgomery (Turning Point USA), as he seems to pass WP:GNG. -- The Anome (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The lead should cover the group's misinformation efforts
Given that the group is pushing COVID-19 conspiracy theories and falsehoods about voter fraud, I think it's reasonable and DUE that the lead covers how the group's rhetoric walks "the line between mainstream conservative opinion and outright disinformation", as the NY Times put it. Currently, the lead only quotes TPUSA's own description of promoting"the principles of fiscal responsibility, free markets and limited government." It would be helpful to readers to clarify that there is more to this group's rhetoric than that. An attributed statement from the NY Times seems good. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * A single article from a NYT political writer is not sufficient for the claim to be in the lead. That is a rather provocative line that is dances near the BLP violation line since the article level backing isn't robust for such a generalized statement.  As a rule we should be careful about putting such lines in what is supposed to be an encyclopedic article, not a political persuasion article.  Lines like that should never be in an article lead since we don't show they are the summary of multiple sources.  Since this is such a partisan issue I think you would need to find sources on both sides of the fence that defend that POV.  Remember, we aren't here to convince readers that the subject of a wiki article is a bad person/organization etc.  We are (supposed to be) here to provide an impartial telling.  Springee (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be very misleading to add Snooganssnoogans edit because the New York Times article is referring to Charlie Kirk and not directly to TPUSA. But is it about Charlie Kirk the person (and his 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech); Charlie Kirk the spokesperson for Turning Point Action; Charlie Kirk the spokesperson for TPUSA; or, as the article states, Mr. Kirk the “new breed of political agitator”?  Is Charlie Kirk, (Who is often and at great lengths discussed here and was a topic of conversation in the RFC to get his own article) notable enough to get his own page? He has one of the most engaged twitter accounts in the world and he is recurring commentator on political talk shows, as well as an author and even made forbes list 30 under 30. How do we go about nominating a revisit of a discussion to give him his own article?MaximusEditor (talk) 07:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , "freeze peach" is the absolute worst argument for promoting disinformation that's actually killing people, you know that, right? Guy (help!) 08:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Spokespeople don’t get to voice their personal opinions... Thats part of their job. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like more of Kirk's rantings and not directly related to the subject of this article. Yes Kirk has his own section, but that is only for things he says and does in direct relation to the organization. Which this falls outside of. Otherwise the section turns into a coat rack. PackMecEng (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel like if Kirk had his own page half of the arguments on this page would be unnecessary. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you are probably right. I don't recall exactly but didn't he at one point and it got merged into here? PackMecEng (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was once a Charlie Kirk (activist) article, it was merged along with discussions such as here. Beyond My Ken mentioned this fact on June 28. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Second (or third) that. To be clear, as added I would still have a concern about this quote. This is a rather provocative yet not entirely informative quote.  For instance, if we said "The NYT said Mr JM is a known liar" we would have a problematic quote.  It's an ugly label but given without evidence.  That would be fine if this were Wikitabloid.  Instead, the more encyclopedic way to hand this is to present the evidence provided by others and then summarize in an impartial tone. Thus "Mr JM lost several libel suits related to accusations made against business competitors. Mr JM accused Mr KS of over stating profits in Q2.  Mr JM's own Q2 profit statements were later found to be fraudulent"  As an encyclopedia we need to stick to an impartial tone.  The user shouldn't ever get the idea that the article was written by someone who wanted to persuade the reader that the subject is a bad person/organization/thing.  Springee (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keeping things in perspective - this is not a BLP but because of Kirk's connection, BLP policy does apply. It is not our job to debate the science of COVID-19 or expound on, much less include, Kirk's beliefs or ideologies which appear to be more controversial than the actual work of TPUSA. As editors we "should not become focused on bolstering and subsequently refuting [Kirk's] views or theories" about COVID, especially when it has nothing to do with the purpose of TPUSA. Such debates actually belong in articles that focus on COVID, not here or in Kirk's section, or in his bio if we had a standalone BLP. If the latter were true, it would be appropriate to succinctly state his view, if it's determined to be DUE and passes WP:10YT, and link to the relative articles about COVID. Atsme Talk 📧 20:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , well, it turns out that sources are picking up the deletion of tweets mocking masks following the death of Bill Montgomery: https://www.rawstory.com/2020/07/pro-trump-group-deletes-image-mocking-masks-after-co-founder-dies-from-19/ https://www.businessinsider.com/tpusa-deletes-tweet-mocking-masks-after-montgomery-coronavirus-death-2020-7 https://www.dailydot.com/debug/turning-point-usa-co-founder-dies-covid-19/ Guy (help!) 00:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Guy, as it turns out - per WP:RS/Perennial: Daily Dot - "Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article"; Business Insider: "additional considerations apply: The source is marginally reliable"; Raw Story: - tabloids, no thanks. Tweets - not for this. You know better than that, Guy. Atsme  Talk 📧 01:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , As I said, . I didn't add it to the article because none of the sources at that time meet my criteria for reliability. But they were the first of many: https://www.businessinsider.com/tpusa-deletes-tweet-mocking-masks-after-montgomery-coronavirus-death-2020-7?r=US&IR=T, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/pro-trump-youth-group-tpusa-deleted-a-tweet-mocking-protective-masks-after-its-co-founder-died-with-the-coronavirus/ar-BB17mMq9, https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/29/turning-point-usa-founder-dies-coronavirus-complications-387077, also note this from April in the Chicago Triubune: https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/sns-nyt-conservative-activist-weaponizes-pandemic-20200420-ycoh4plafzfmhhihkwk4o4px2q-story.html You assumed bad faith there. I was simply noting that this does appear to be true, and probably won't go away: it's likely to be considered a notable incident. COVID-19 has created a number of conservative hostages to fortune, and schadenfreude alone is sufficient motivation for journalists to write about them when the inevitable happens. Guy (help!) 12:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Guy, WP:RECENTISM. I've already explained that the sources you mentioned don't cut the mustard. The Chicago Tribune has only passing mention of Montgomery as a co-founder, but most of that article is political and there was nothing about him dying of COVID complications. Furthermore, the echo chamber is spreading information that was provided by 2 friends of Montgomery - no names were given. Where is the high quality medical verification that WP:MEDRS requires, especially concerning this is about cause of death? If this information is notable and verifiable, there would be factual medical evidence in sources that meet our requirements. Why hasn't it been published in The New York Times or even WaPo or did I miss those articles? Atsme  Talk 📧 12:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned about this recent addition to the article relating to wearing masks.[] I see two issues. First, Politico doesn't support the term "mocking".  Politico does say that Kirk/TPUSA opposed masks on civil liberty grounds and questioned their effectiveness for the general population.  It also was clear that vonuerable populations should self isolate. This is significant because just saying "mocking" suggests they are claiming the masks do nothing in all circumstances.  That isn't what they have said so we shouldn't misrepresent their claims.  Second is Business Insider as a source for the mask removal claim.  BI is weak in terms of reliability for political topics.  The BI doesn't even have a named writer.  If one looks at The Week, it says TPUSA deleted a tweet and points to MSN as evidence.  The MSN story is actually just a syndication of the same BI story.  Thus we ultimately have just one source of questionable reliability for the claim.  Guy posted a Chicago Tribune story but that one is from a few months back and can't support the recent addition.  While some sources seem to want to play up the emotional laden terms (mocking for example) we should be more precise about what unpopular subjects are actually claiming.  TPUSA's claims will likely ultimately be wrong or and over emphasize the minority cases (for example some people do have legitimate medical reasons to avoid masks but I bet the number that think they do is far higher).  TPUSA isn't saying "masks never help" so we need to avoid texts that suggests that is their actual message.  I think this is a case where those who favor masks find it easier to simply mock and over state the case made by the other side rather than discuss the claims in detail.  Sometimes ridicule is more effective than logic. Both sides use it and, sadly, it ends up in Wikipedia, often stripped of the original arguments that supported a position.  Springee (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed the recently added material. It seems the only reason for inclusion was to suggest the organization hypocritically mocked the removed a tweet about wearing masks.  The problem is a BI article with no named author is the only source for that claim.  Thus, even if true, WEIGHT is a problem.  Without that source of controversy the rest of the material doesn't have a purpose.  Yes, TPUSA has been critical of mask policies but they have also said elderly and vulnerable should self isolate.  It isn't clear how Montgomery  caught COVID-19 so we shouldn't allow the article to suggest Montgomery got it by failing to wear a mask.  Ultimately it's a POINTy edit made with shaky evidence.  Springee (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Motion to demerge Charlie Kirk section to separate article
This is a new discussion to formally nominate TPUSA's Charlie Kirk section to be demerged and given his own article. I do this because the topic presented itself as a possible solution to take away clutter from the TurningPoint article (Turning Point USA) as well as was discussed in a few sections preceding this one but seemed to fall to the wayside with nobody taking appropriate action. I am aware that Charlie Kirk was merged quite some time ago into this TPUSA article under the pretense that Kirk was not notable for any other event other than the formation of Turning Point USA. This reasoning fails now as we all know he passes the main criteria for a stand-alone article via WP:GNG three fold. This topic has been brought up numerous times which goes to show that quite a few editors think he is notable to have his own article. Also at the time of the merge ( over 2 ½ years ago in 2018) it was stated that if the section (Kirk) were to start getting too big it would be prevalent to demerge it. It is quite big and seems to keep getting bigger. Here are some more “Notable things about Kirk”:
 * - He has one of the most engaged twitter accounts in the world
 * - He has made Forbes 30 under 30 list in 2018
 * - Bestselling author
 * - Editor at large for Newsweek
 * - Youngest speaker at CPAC
 * - Regular Columnist for foxnews.com, Breitbart, Washington Times, and The Hill
 * - Guest Commentator on various media outlets with reportedly over 600 appearances on shows including: CNBC; Fox News; FOX Business News; The Sean Hannity Show (radio); Hannity (TV); Tucker Carlson Tonight (TV); Justice with Judge Jeanine (TV), The Ingraham Angle (TV), Life, Liberty and Levin (TV), The Limbaugh Letter; plus numerous radio and podcast appearances.

As for people who are claiming WP:BIO1E, it specifies that: If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. Also “event” isn’t quite the best descriptor to use to label notoriety in this situation. It makes it sound like a one-time occurrence. He has done all those things I listed and is very relevant in the current political climate.MaximusEditor (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I support a page for Kirk, however I can’t find anything about him being an editor at large for Newsweek nor is it anywhere to be found in the link. As for the rest I think you may be overselling him slightly. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The link is on newsweek.com and shows that he has contributed 41 Opinion articles to date; yes, you are correct, it does not specifically say "editor at large", but that seems to be the most appropriate description of his position at Newsweek . MaximusEditor (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't need to engage in WP:OR about him being an editor at large or not. He is either notable enough for an article or not, a job title doesn't matter. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * we don't do motions. We do requests for comment. Doug Weller  talk 11:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * After further research into demerging the "Founder Charlie Kirk" section into its own article I came across some interesting Wiki guidelines. The correct terminology would be to demerge and WP:SPLIT the TPUSA article and Charlie Kirk section. According to the WP:SIZESPLIT guideline; when an article is >100kb in size it "Almost certainly should be divided" to keep it a reasonable size.  At 101,902 bytes, TPUSA is in the largest category.  This keeps the subtopics of the article from dominating the talk page from the main topic of the article, which we've been seeing a lot of lately. Personally I've stated why Charlie Kirk is notable, this is just another formality that we need a WP:SPLIT.MaximusEditor (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Read WP:PROSPLIT on the formalities of how to propose. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Support Even as a liberal, I agree with MaximusEditor as to Kirk's significance in politics today. Drummerdg (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not about Kirk being significant, but his notable as shown by coverage in RSs. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * He's been covered extensively by just about every major news outlet in the United States (looks like Maximus posted just a small selection of those above). You don't think that fulfills WP:GNG? Drummerdg (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, for the correct documentation for WP:PROSPLIT, following the guidelines, I'm implementing the next step and adding a split tag to the article .MaximusEditor (talk) 02:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I striked my comment, tag was already added.MaximusEditor (talk) 03:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Support However one may feel about Kirk, he easily passes the notability threshold now. S Philbrick (Talk)  12:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Support as per all other comments. BSMIsEditing (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC) Support, he may be an idiot, but he’s a notable idiot. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC) Support, I'm surprised he doesn't have one already, many other conservative pundits have much less media coverage and still a page. And I think Kirk is completely laughable. Tinyds (talk) 03:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Support, Shocked he doesn't already have an independent article. SecretName101 (talk) 05:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

strongly support this is long overdue Kingofthedead (talk) 06:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Support He easily passes GNG. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose No, he is adequately explained on this page. There is no need to waste Wikipedia memory and give him his own page, he has barely done anything. Everything is perfect as it is. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 04:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Support Per nom. Mottezen (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Support Kirk is a notable figure in today's politics, despite being divisive. It would contribute much to the declutter of TPUSA's page. JohnHawkinsBois (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Misinformation
There is reliable sources for the fact that this org spreads misinformation and hell, most of the article is about various instances of them doing precisely that. So arguing that mentioning this in the lede is “UNDUE” is disingenuous. The lede summarizes the body.

(Let me take a wild guess what the next two arguments will be...)  Volunteer Marek   03:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

inserted text of a passing mention of a personal text from an employee and says its indicative of the organization as a whole, even though turning point did not say this. Should it remain in the first sentence of the lead? PackMecEng (talk) 03:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * See my comment above. Reliable source says what it says. It references the history of the organization not just one particular tweet.  Volunteer Marek   03:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I moved mine and VMs comments up and merged them to this section. PackMecEng (talk) 04:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure if Im cool with that for the simple reason that I KNOW someone will try to use the “VolunteerMarek didn’t even start a discussion on talk” line in bad faith, whereas in fact I DID start discussion (hell, Springee is already trying to insinuate it below) Your “moving” of my comments obscures that fact.  Volunteer Marek   04:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The edit was rightly reverted. Such an accusation of dishonesty should not be in the first sentence of the article especially given the sourcing.  PF is seen as an opinion source.  Generally good though not always (I can think of at least one problematic one recently).  Per WP:RSP it should be attributed.  The way you were trying to use the source here is questionable especially since you are using a single source to make a claim in the lead vs putting the claim in the body.  The USAToday source doesn't support a statement in Wiki voice that TPUSA has a history of spreading false information.  So no, this is absolutely not OK in the opening sentence.  Second, VM, once the material was reverted you should have stopped there.  Restoring it without an adequate talk page discussion is NOT OK.  This should have been clear after 's comments in this discussion [].  Springee (talk) 04:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This article isn’t under 1RR (and I’ve only made 1 revert when you wrote it while PackMeEng has made 2, so why aren’t you chastising him?) There actually isn’t anything relevant in El_C’s comments in that discussion so I’m not sure what your point is.  Volunteer Marek   04:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1RR doesn't matter. Once two editors have opposed your new addition you shouldn't be restoring it.  Per BRD you should know that you don't restore it after just one challenge until the concerns have been addressed.  Springee (talk) 04:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * First, it wasn’t “two editors” it was one editor - who reverted twice - so please stop misinforming about the situation. Second, BRD only works if someone makes a policy based legit argument, not a WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT revert. Third, Springee, it’s getting really tiresome watching you wikilawyer and misrepresent policy in repeated attempts to stonewall changes and force your version of some articles - you’re always crying “onus!” or “no consensus!” (or “BLPCRIME!” in situations where it doesn’t apply) - but hardly if ever actually address the substance and content of particular edits. This is certainly the case here.  Volunteer Marek   05:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed that you double posted when I restored the second copy of the above text Springee (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In reverse order, it's getting really tiresome seeing you ignore policies because you feel your edits are too important to consider consensus (or no consensus). Second, policy based reasons have been mentioned.  You might not agree but that isn't the same as no legit objections.  First, it was three editors when you restored for the second time (check the time stamps).  You shouldn't have restored once PME raised an objection until the discussion had completed much less edit warred after it was initially challenged.  Springee (talk) 05:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m not ignoring policy I’m actually trying to implement it - the lede is suppose to summarize the contents of the article. And my revert was done after only PME’s objection. I even started a talk page discussion (which was then “merged”/erased by PME). Please don’t misinform the nature of the situation. As far as this “consensus” I’d have a much easier time buying this is any kind of consensus if it wasn’t the same couple of editors who ALWAYS immediately show up in quick succession at these articles and start throwing irrelevant reasons, any and all, as fairly transparent excuses for their stonewalling of any article improvements which may reflect negatively on conservative orgs or individuals. You and a couple of your buddies aren’t “consensus”.  Volunteer Marek   05:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with PME & Springee. It's an extraordinary claim sourced to a single opinion based fact-checker, and that fails WP:REDFLAG. Such an allegation is not even DUE in the body text. History of misinformation? Let's hope Politifact doesn't decide to judge any WP articles to see if cited content aligns with the cited source(s). Atsme Talk 📧 04:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

So surprised to see you two here, almost immediately. The source is reliable. Most of the article is about this very fact. There’s an extensive section which documents, with reliable sources, case after case, after case, after case, the controversies and instances of TPUSA spreading misinformation. Yet you demand that this info be kept out of lede. You’re basically asking that the lead NOT summarize the body.

As for Politifact (yes, it’s a reliable source, however you try to spin that) just remember that the statements in the lede ‘’’don’t even have to be sourced’’’ if the info is in the body of the article, so this is beside the point.

And hey, Atsme? If Politifact judges some Wikipedia article then we’ll put that in, ok? Until then please refrain from constructing imaginary straw man.  Volunteer Marek  04:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please avoid comments that come across as accusations of bad faith. Springee (talk) 04:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please, just for once, address the substance of content and argument and I’ll see about that agf. Deal?  Volunteer Marek   05:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You started your comment with "So surprised to see you two here, almost immediately.". That isn't addressing the content or arguments.  Springee (talk) 05:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And then I proceeded to address content and arguments. You have yet to do so.
 * Also, please stop removing the “inadequate lede” tag. The lede obviously does not summarize the article. Nothing from the controversies section is mentioned, it’s a straight up white wash and an obnoxiously obvious violation of NPOV. At this point it seems like you’re just reverting for sake of edit warring and/or to stonewall ANY changes to this article and it’s garbage lede.  Volunteer Marek   05:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The arguments have been addressed by PME, Astme and myself. The inadequate lead tag is not needed here.  Currently you haven't made a good case that there is anything wrong with the lead.  Tags aren't meant to be tags of shame just because there isn't consensus for a disputed change.  Springee (talk) 05:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No they haven’t. All you three have done is make some IJUSTDONTLIKEIT claims.
 * The lede. Is suppose to. Summarize. The Article.
 * Right now it simply doesn’t. Where does it summarize anything from the controversies section?
 * Just saying “I disagree” isn’t an actual argument. It’s just... obfuscation. Please explain how the current lede summarizes the article content?
 * And really, cut it out with the endless wikilawyering.  Volunteer Marek   05:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I've re-added the tag. Anyone who disagrees should read MOS:LEAD: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." -- Calidum  05:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The lead should summarize the body. Furthermore, this organization's role as a peddler of lies and conspiracy theories is clearly a key part of its notability. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

ADL in lead
This looks like a very questionable edit for a stand alone paragraph in the lead. The body of the article mentions the ADL only once in a single sentence section that is shares with the SPLC. How is this one line DUE a stand alone paragraph in the lead? This edit should be reverted. Springee (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The body of the article has a huge section controversies! Yet you refuse to allow for any of these to be even mentioned in the lede! The ADL assessment is notable and it succinctly summarizes the problems described in the body of the article (though we should also summarize the dodgy tax stuff too).
 * We are now in a ridiculous situation where a couple editors are preventing the lede of the article from doing what it’s suppose to.  Volunteer Marek   16:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * See my edit in the section above where I agree that a summary of the controversies should be in the lead. However, adding a single, particular criticism to the lead as you did is UNDUE. We shouldn't confuse a lack of SUMMARY of criticism in the lead for a justification to add a particular criticism to the lead. Springee (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, make a proposal. The racism and antisemitism though needs to be mentioned since that is very significant, lest anyone (else) try to dismiss this as "petty".  Volunteer Marek   17:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Dubious and petty?
I’m sorry but how in the world does this edit summary justify what is essentially a blind revert? Either the material in the controversies section is “dubious and petty” ( it’s actually well sourced) in which case it should be removed, or it’s not, in which case it needs to be summarized in the lede.

Also, in what world are the spreading of conspiracy theories, false information, history of racist and anti Semitic remarks and tax code allegations “petty” issues? That’s kind of a... insane assertion.

Do some editors honestly believe that when a five year field director says, quote, “i hate black people. Like fuck them all. . . I hate blacks. End of story”, and is also praised by the organization’s founder, that’s a “petty controversy”? Gimme a fucking break.  Volunteer Marek  07:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What is the source for that claim? Springee (talk) 10:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you telling me that you started an edit war over the lede and how it fails to summarize the article, and removed a tag about the lede not summarizing the article properly... without actually having read the body of the article?  Volunteer Marek   13:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You were the first editor to edit war. Once the content was disputed you shouldn't have restored until consensus was reached on the talk page.  As for that quote, we don't know the context in which it was made and it wasn't made in any official capacity with respect to TPUSA nor did anyone show it reflected how the organization behaved or just the individual.  I believe this was discussed previously and found to be questionable for inclusion.  See 's 2 July 2020 post in archive 2 [].  BTW, it would be interesting to know the context given she got a job with Clarence Thomas's wife after this quote was reported. Springee (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * —it seems pretty "dubious and petty" to for instance chastise a black woman (Candace Owens) for mentioning "Hitler" in what I would see as a non-problematic context. I believe there are idiots on both sides and perhaps even more importantly there is the insidious effort to misconstrue what the other side has said. This boils down to "dubious and petty" to me, but your mileage may vary. Bus stop (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If that was all that the controversies section was - Owens saying “Hitler” - then maybe you’d have a point. But it’s not. It’s a huge section with a ton of stuff in it, so please stop trying to pretend that it’s just a “petty” thing or two.
 * Do you honestly believe that the field director of this org saying, quote, “I hate black people ... fuck them all” is just “pettiness” on the part of people who find this disturbing? Yes?  Volunteer Marek   16:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It appears this was previously discussed. I agree we should try to summarize the controversy material and add it to the lead.  Given the length of the article I would like to see the lead in a 3 paragraph format.  The first paragraph being the basic, not controversial facts (what it legally is, when it was founded, what the stated mission is, etc).  The second paragraph would be a summary of what are currently the 2-7 in the article.  That doesn't mean every detail but really a high level summary in the form of 2-3 sentences.  The third paragraph would be the place for a multi-sentence summary of the controversy section.  This shouldn't quote or cite any particular detail or click bait type quote.  Instead it should summarize the types of criticisms/controversies the organization has been involved with.  As for the content you wanted to add, that was already discussed here [] and here [].  Springee (talk) 16:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "Previously discussed" more or less means "we tried to stonewall it back in June and consensus was against us but that won't stop us from trying again". This discussion that you link is typical:
 * Atsme yelling "it's challenged!" and citing a whole bunch of irrelevant policies (precisely the kind of behavior she was topic banned for previously).
 * You questioning the reliability/accuracy of sources only to be given five more high quality sources.
 * Atsme then announcing she doesn't care if it's reliably sourced, even if we find 600 more reliable sources and trying to derail the discussion with something completely irrelevant (precisely the kind of behavior she was topic banned for previously)
 * Then Atsme again dismissing reliable sources (because "it's behind a paywall", which is not a valid reason), throwing out a bunch more irrelevant policy acronyms (UNDUE!) and then on top of that completely misrepresenting the sources (precisely the kind of behavior she was topic banned for previously)
 * In response to that another editor quotes the relevant section of the source at length to make it perfectly clear to Atsme what the source actually says. To that Atsme responds, in bad faith, by accusing her of making COPYVIOs and then throws a whole of her own very strange WP:OR on top of that. Precisely. The Kind. Of Behavior... you get the point.
 * When the issue with Atsme's behavior is raised she responds by falsely accusing other editors of "making personal attacks". This is an obvious deflection.
 * Several more editors show up and say they also disagree with Atsme (and you). One of them specifically points out that Atsme is jumping from one bad faith argument to another, doing anything she can to, quote, "subvert consensus"
 * More editors show up to disagree with Atsme.
 * That whole COPYVIO accusation by Atsme bears fruit and the discussion is derailed into a side discussion of what is and what isn't a copyvio.
 * A brand new SPA account, with "88" in its username, shows up to support Atsme.


 * End result? The edit, despite having overwhelming consensus is never implemented because Atsme and you successfully stonewalled and derailed the discussion.
 * Let me guess. Now you're going to ask us to assume good faith.  Volunteer Marek   17:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Consensus required now in effect as a discretionary sanction for this article
Hi, everyone. I keep receiving pings to this article, but I'm limited with the hands-on assistance I can provide at this time. As a result, in a somewhat unusual more, I am mandating the Consensus required provision (which includes WP:1RR) for this article. This discretionary sanction is, basically, a stricter version of the much more fluid WP:ONUS. It sucks to need to be so painstaking in the editorial process, but the alternative right now seem worse. If need be, go with dispute resolution requests for individual items under contention, requests (like WP:RFC, WP:RSN, etc.) which will also help bring more outside editorial input. Please also note that accusing another editor of trying to dis/credit living persons is an especially severe aspersion. There needs to be a coherent body of evidence in a forum like WP:BLPN for it not to be so. So, either do that, or please make no such mention. I will review this sanction soon. It may end up being waived later. I'm not sure yet. Thanks in advance for everyone's close attention. El_C 16:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * To be honest I think this may be helpful. In this case it's not that VM's concerns are without merit.  The issue is SUMMARY vs specific details in the lead.  I think a good faith balance can be reached which will hopefully negate the need for this restriction.  Springee (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

- does this apply to the addition or the removal of the lede tag, like here and here. The whole issue is that right now, in this "consensus required" version, there is a very serious problem with the lede vis a vis the actual article. The lede is supposed to summarize the article. Right now it doesn't. At the very least (and especially if you're able to provide only limited assistance here), the tag should stay until the issue is resolved.  Volunteer Marek  17:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, it applies to any edit which is recent (i.e. not longstanding), pretty much whatsoever. El_C 17:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe the tag would be allowed by participants, though. That is a compromise I would recommend, though am wary to mandate. El_C 17:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Right. So once more preserving shitty content is more important than having admins actually do their fucking job and pay attention to the actual article.  Volunteer Marek   17:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at who the participants are???????? I'm sorry this is ridiculous. The article is full of well sourced - high quality sources - material about the numerous controversies this organization has been involved them. Some of them quite extreme. High ranking members saying, quote, "I hate black people, fuck them all", members chanting "fuck the ni**ers", watchdogs documenting links to far right extremists and white supremacists, another director of the org writing guides with slides like "FUCK THE Ni**ERS" and "JEWISH SLAVES" and shaming women for, quote, dating "ni**erjocks", violations of campaign finance regulations, etc.
 * The "participants" in this discussion - who you think might graciously allow us to add a small tag to the article to indicate there's some problems here - have not been able to successfully keep this material out of the article because it is so well sourced and so extensive. But they sure as hell managed to completely whitewash the lede so NONE of this is summarized there. In violation of policy.
 * Right now, based on the lede you'd think this is just some young college kids, strolling around college campuses, loving America and politely informing curious passerbys about the benefits of free enterprise.
 * This is a fucking joke.  Volunteer Marek   17:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Upon further consideration, I have added the tag myself. El_C 17:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. FYI I'm gonna go take my dog for a walk now.  Volunteer Marek   17:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure. I think there is enough substance here to merit something. Enjoy your walk! El_C 17:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Have you looked at who the participants are????????. This is inappropriate. Participants are editors in good standing, as far as I'm concerned. El_C 17:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the lead
As I said before, I think there is merit to the claim that the lead needs to be expanded. To that end I'm proposing the following as a first draft. This started with the current lead. For discussion sake I have removed citations and links. If needed they can be added in once the text is agreed upon.
 * Proposed lead below

Turning Point USA (TPUSA) is an American conservative nonprofit organization founded by Charlie Kirk in 2012. The organization's stated mission is to "identify, educate, train and organize students to promote the principles of fiscal responsibility, free markets and limited government." This is done via university campus outreach. [this article really needs more information on the basic activities of TPUSA, things like how do they communicate their message (social media, videos, campus outreach etc), even if the message is controversial] Turning Point USA's affiliated organizations include Turning Point News, the Turning Point Endowment, Turning Point Action, and Students for Trump. Starting in 2016, Turning Point USA maintains a Professor Watchlist. This is a list of college professors the organization says discriminate against conservative students or advance what it considers to be left-wing propaganda in the classroom.

The organization has had controversy and been criticized for it's activities and messaging. The organization has been shut down or denied recognition on some campuses. It has been accused of attempting to influence student government elections in ways that violated university policies. The organization has been accused of spreading disinformation about topics including COVID-19. The organization has been accused of having connections with alt-right groups and employing people accused of posting racism comments.


 * end of proposal

This doesn't hit my 3 paragraph suggestion but I think it's an improvement. I will say that one of the problems with this article is much of the criticism section reads like a laundry list of small things rather than a higher level summary of what's wrong with the overall organization. Some of the problems seem like things that might be issues related to having college kids run things on various campuses. However, things that are official statements/actions of the parent organization should be clearly described as they are more significant with respect to an article about the parent organization. Springee (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * This is a NO. The info that needs to be summarized is:
 * 1) The racist statements and actions by high level members of this org. Shall I go through the long list of these?
 * 2) The assessment by watchdog organizations (you can attribute) about links to far right extremism and white supremacism
 * 3) The spreading of disinformation
 * Based on that:
 * 1) You weasel this with the "has been accused". The freakin' director is on record with text messages with his racist statements. The dude's slides with racist remarks have been released. Kirk praised these people in his book. And let's not beat around the bush. The sources don't say "alt-right". They say "white supremacist" and "far right"
 * 2) This is missing entirely from your proposal.
 * 3) Thank you for including this part.
 *  Volunteer Marek  17:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Going down your list
 * 1. This was included in my proposal.  The problem is these accusations appear to be unrelated to the operation/function/mission of TPUSA.
 * 2. This is included via "alt-right".  These connections are made by advocacy groups and can not be stated in Wiki-voice.  The SPLC and ADL are not groups without their own biases.  We should be careful that claims of "white nationalism" are clear cut vs they were listening to someone who is accused of being racist etc.
 * 3. Well we got somewhere.
 * I posted this not to suggest it was "the new lead". This is a working point.  You are welcome/encouraged to copy it and make a new proposal. Springee (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I just reviewed the list of accusations in the SPLC articles that are used to support "white nationalist". They are very weak.  The "alt-right" arguments have some merit but even then the SLPC conflates anti-illegal immigration with anti-immigration.  That's a very disingenuous thing to do.  Some people are genuinely anti-immigration, others are opposed to uncontrolled, immigration.  The SPLC fails to note the difference.  Also, in the case of the "white-nationalist", the SPLC said TWP members came to a TPUSA speaking engagement at CSU.  It did not say TPUSA invited or welcomed them.  In fact it said, "TPUSA at CSU and UNC [University of Northern Colorado] condemns white nationalism and embraces students from all backgrounds." as well as other statements making it clear they didn't want to have anything to do with the white nationalists.  Incidentally, the statement in the wiki article body, "In 2018, the Southern Poverty Law Center's Hatewatch documented TPUSA's links to white supremacists" should be changed.  The first source explicitly says TPUSA was trying to distance itsef (see above).  The second SPLC article quotes another group claiming someone who marched in Charlottesville, said something etc.  This gets to be a game of telephone where the actual comments/context/quotes have been passed on so many times it's hard to tell who is who.  Such weak sourcing from an advocacy organization shouldn't be directly quoted in the article.  In the case of SPLC claims, I think RS discussions have said they generally shouldn't be given weight unless reported by others.  Anyway, this shows some of the issues with this article.  Rather than solid facts we have sources that make questionable links and misquote/characterize (anti illegal immigration vs just anti immigration).  This may be a shit organization but that doesn't mean we should create a shit article about it.  Springee (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I've thoroughly combed through the instances of racism & anti Semitism section, reading all the pertinent citation sources. My biggest observation is that in all the cases that are highlighted, I feel like there isn't WP:DUE weight from the citation articles shining light that TPUSA severed ties with any of the employees who committed the acts of racism, its simply glossed over. What we have to do is be very careful as to not breach WP:REDFLAG, adding a poorly worded summary of the racist incidents without the WP:WEIGHT of mentioning TPUSAs termination of said employees, could inadvertently paint the organization as racist, as a whole, which is quite an extraordinary claim therefore requiring extraordinary sources. As points out, the SPLC links are WEAK, to say the least. The New Yorker piece is very contradictory because it states in the article that Gabrielle Fequiere in hindsight thinks she was mistreated because of her race, but then later the article states she says she saw white colleagues being mistreated as well – so her claims of racism are discredited. (The article also highlights she said the reasoning for her being fired was due to poor performance) I do agree we should add something to the lede but it needs to sound like this to keep it WP:IMPARTIAL:


 * "TPUSA has cut ties with a few employees that have engaged in racist activity on a personal level and has publicly denounced racism in all its forms."


 * I think most of the stuff you want to add to the lede in regards to “disinformation” is Kirk talking about COVID 19 and retweeting a Judicial Watch post about how voter registration numbers in Iowa are suspiciously large, but I want to point out Charlie Kirk is being WP:SPLIT into his own independent article, and that it is under his jurisdiction, so I think your 3rd demand is moot. But same ideology as WP:REDFLAG, you have WP:BLP guidelines, because you are going to say Charlie kirk is spreading disinformation, you have to be very careful how you word it in the lede.MaximusEditor (talk) 23:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Tagged until issues can be resolved
I removed material that was RECENTISM, involved unsubstantiated allegations, and did not accurately reflect what the cited source stated. I also noticed that the Controversies section does not include all substantial views so there is a NPOV issue there. I'm wondering if it wouldn't help to get some uninvolved copy editors involved in cleaning things up? I am a member of the Lead improvement team, but I would prefer an uninvolved editor take a look at it. Atsme Talk 📧 00:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * - your attention is requested for this unwarranted revert by . The tags I added are as necessary as the lead tag but even more so because they speak to policy, not just MOS. I did start a discussion as evidenced here. The tags should not have been removed. Atsme Talk 📧 01:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree Soibangla's removal was unwarranted. As an example, consider 's comments above regarding the over emphasis on the claims of racism combined with the lack of emphasis on the actions TPUSA took to remove the employees in question.  In my view this justifies the inclusion of the tags.  Springee (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The general purpose of article-wide tags is to bring more editors into an article with little discussion. Unfortunately, article-wide tags are often used to shame an article or to register displeasure that things are not going one's way. If you have disagreements, discuss them. There are certainly enough editors here as there are 160 watchers and 73 that have visited recent edits. O3000 (talk) 01:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Just a point of order. We do not remove allegations because they are "unsubstantiated". That is never a sufficient reason or should even factor into making such a decision. We do it if they are unsourced, and/or, if strongly negative (as opposed to merely controversial), fail the conditions described by BLP's WP:PUBLICFIGURE. -- Valjean (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , assuming you mean the extensively researched material from the Washington Post? "In response to questions from The Post, Twitter on Tuesday suspended at least 20 accounts involved in the activity for “platform manipulation and spam.” Facebook also removed a number of accounts as part of what the company said is an ongoing investigation." So, that seems pretty significant. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

My view is that substantiated tags are exempt from the consensus required rules. We're not going to run an RfC about whether a tag should be displaying in the course of a dispute. But it's probably best that tags be added sparingly, in individual components. Two at once (for a total of three) is a bit much. I view a Multiple issues tag with more than two components to be excessive for this page. In this case, a tag may only remain displaying so long as its basis is being actively discussed. Otherwise, it may be legitimately removed. El_C 03:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I am a bit disappointed in your decision, El C, but sort of expected it. You probably justifiably expect me to disagree, and you'd be right. A big part of my reasoning for that tag is based on years of experience as a reviewer with WP:NPP whose job it is to fix noncompliant material and tag articles. As a dyed in the wool pragmatist, I see things from an entirely different perspective from editors who focus primarily on this topic area. Regardless, consensus is what matters, and after reading Ideological bias on Wikipedia wherein it states (and is cited to RS): ...articles with smaller edit volumes by a smaller number of ideologically homogeneous contributors were more likely to reflect editorial bias, I have decided to not waste our valuable time arguing about it here. I'll simply take my concerns to the broader community to achieve consensus and get more eyes on this problematic article. Happy editing. Atsme Talk 📧 16:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * , basically, you wanted two additional tags, they wanted zero additional ones. I cut in the middle by allowing for one. Which seemed like the expedient thing to do. A dispute about tag bombing would have been a timesink. Especially considering that a tag for WP:DUE issues and a tag for WP:NPOV issues is a bit redundant due to DUE being a specific section of the NPOV policy page itself. El_C 01:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Standalone article about Charlie Kirk
There has been a discussion on this page: Talk:Turning Point USA that was closed as keep by User:MaximusEditor who also started the discussion. That may not have been entirely according to our policies and guidelines, but it looks as if there is consensus to do so. The article has not been split yet, though. In the mean time User:Whitetiger24601 has started Charlie Kirk (Turning Point), and we have a redirect, Charlie_Kirk_(activist) that links to Turning_Point_USA. Now Charlie Kirk (Turning Point) has also been redirected. This is a bit of a mess. We now have two redirects that used to be articles about Kirk, the first started as  the second as  that redirect to the page that was supposed to be split. I don't think it's a good idea to create yet another page, so one of the two redirects should become an article again, and the other redirect should redirect there. I suggest that the most appropriate title is Charlie_Kirk_(activist), and that Charlie Kirk (Turning Point) should redirect there. What do you think? Vexations (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think your suggestion is a reasonable way forward. signed,Rosguill talk 21:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, The previous article about Charlie Kirk is antiquated, I am in the process of updating the article and will be ready to publish shortly - so I should just edit over the previous article? MaximusEditor (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There are instructions on splitting at Splitting. The consensus was to move the content from Turning Point USA to a separate article. So you should probably do that first. Once the content has been moved, you can begin to improve it. Vexations (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it's reasonable to create a standalone article for Charlie Kirk, although with the qualifier that a lot of his actions and rhetoric is intrinsically related to TPUSA and should be kept on the TPUSA page. In other words, everything Kirk-related shouldn't be removed from the TPUSA page. I worry that some editors will see the existence of two articles as an excuse to remove all controversial content from one by claiming it's irrelevant (which I know has happened on many other articles). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, we are following WP:PROSPLIT, but it is a little more complicated - e.g. the Charlie Kirk section in the TPUSA article does not have the Infobox information (like date of birth, etc.). Plus information needs to be added about TPUSA (that is to say, he is the Founder and President of TPUSA, so when we make the new Charlie Kirk article, it needs to have a section on TPUSA).  This also is more of a demerge, since it already was its own article, which we have to merge back to, so we have to take the new material and check for redundancies and such. MaximusEditor (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I moved the bio on Charlie Kirk into the Leadership section and changed the two redirects accordingly. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Completed the WP:PROSPLIT step in consolidating Charlie Kirk section and splitting it over to the new article. Got rid of the redirect from Charlie Kirk (activist) and got rid of the split tag as well as added a main tag. Thanks for consolidating and organizing the leadership section. MaximusEditor (talk) 04:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I don’t have any objections to the split. I do object to the wholesale removal of content, however. Kirk was and continues to be the face and mouthpiece of Turning Point and much of what he says and does is inseparable from Turning Point. Take the last paragraph for example (I removed the links): In October 2016, Kirk participated in a Fox News event along with Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and Lara Trump that had a pro-Donald Trump tone. A Turning Point staff member wrote on Facebook that students who attended the event would have their expenses covered. The event led tax experts to say the organization's conduct may have violated its tax-exempt status, a charge disputed by Turning Point. Hard to argue that this is all on Kirk,  nothing to do with the organization.  We can argue about individual mentions (I haven’t finished looking for and reading sources, including those cited in the article). For now, I’ve put the content back. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Removal of mission statement
- explain this revert, please. You cited an essay for its removal when the essay itself doesn't support your removal that I can see. Atsme Talk 📧 18:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , WP:MISSION states a specific implementation of WP:NPOV. It is normal and routine to remove mission statements, even for legitimate nonprofits that do genuine public service. They are marketing slogans, not encyclopaedic content. We have also deprecated and removed them from infoboxes. This is not at all specific to this article, I have done it many, many times including to charities I support with money or time. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but this one has a particular purpose in that the organization created an NPO endowment for itself - and it is also tax exempt. Don't you get it? You should have left that in the lead. This isn't about marketing. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 19:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , the endowment is there. All that's removed is the Orwellian mission statement. Feel free to supply a neutral description from reliable independent sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Going to the WP:MISSION article, the page says in a nutshell:"Mission statements rarely tell us much and should generally not be transcribed in full in Wikipedia articles." This is quite opposite in TPUSA's lede article. The mission statement, which is not a WP:PRIMARY source, but cited by several secondary sources, gives us more information about TPUSA in general than any other sentence in the lede. Nowhere does it include boastful words or WP:PEACOCK in the mission statement. Definitely should be included as it adds to the article. MaximusEditor (talk) 03:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Being cited by secondary sources does not convert a primary source into a secondary source... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it ought to stay out because it doesn't say anything. Support and benefit Turning Point USA NFPs charitable purposes and long-term vitality is a non-statement without any significant meaning, revealing nothing meaningful; and the lack of significant coverage reflects that - while bare coverage exists to note that it exists, it's extremely low quality (being, as far as I can tell, entirely sources that indiscriminately cover the mission statements of every organization they list.)  None of that coverage attributes any significance to it, so it seems WP:UNDUE.  A google search turns up a mere four hits, all from indiscriminate databases of organizations, and the same description appears copy-pasted in all four.  That's not the sort of coverage that shows that an organization's current mission statement is worth mentioning here. --Aquillion (talk) 08:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , what "charitable purposes"? Charitable is doing a lot of work in that sentence. The public benefit of advancing the far right, which is TPUSA's main activity, is questionable at best. And the same would apply to the mission statement of a comparable leftist group, should one exist (oddly, there are many fewer billionaires funding leftist grifters). Guy (help! - typo?) 14:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Time to Split Turning Point Action out of Turning Point USA article
I am currently in the process of splitting the Charlie Kirk section out of TPUSA and it seems appropriate to also split TPAction out of TPUSA for similar reasons. Charlie Kirks personal actions were getting confused with TPUSA's position/policies; now we are seeing editors confusing TPAction with TPUSA. Another issue is the length of the article (TPUSA is breaching size WP:SIZESPLIT which states articles >100kB should be split). Plus TPAction was marginally notable when it was added several months ago; but there is a lot more significant, reliably sourced, activity since then. As previously discussed, TPAction is a 501(c)4 whereas TPUSA is a 501(c)3; these are totally separate nonprofit business entities BY LAW. Consolidating them into one article (and using “Turning Point” as a description), Wikipedia is implying that they have more in common then legally permitted. For the typical Wikipedia reader, the current article is graying the lines rather than clarifying, which is exactly the opposite of what an Encyclopedia's purpose is. At this point in time, TPAction and TPUSA are notable enough to have their own, separate, articles – time to split TPAction out of TPUSA. MaximusEditor (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Kirk is independently notable. TPA? Not so much. The two are almost always discussed jointly in sources, and splitting out TPA would almost create a POVFORK at this point. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Turning Point Action acquired Students for Trump (https://trumpstudents.org/about); so that seems illogical that Wikipedia has a Students for Trump page, but no Turning Point Action page? Also, why talk about TPAction on the TPUSA page when it should be associated with Students for Trump? I'm sure we don't want to erase S4T's entire article? So either we have to keep breaching WP:SIZESPLIT and make the article even bigger by just dumping all of S4T's article into TPUSA? The best course of action is to create a TPAction page, and have the S4T redirect to the parent organization (yes, on the TPUSA page, we can say that TPAction is an affiliate, but should move the TPAction items to the TPACtion page). MaximusEditor (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , because that would have the effect of moving large chunks of shady shit from this page. There is only one grift. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Guy Yes you are correct; the WaPo citation mentions that TPAction is an affiliate of TPUSA BUT the TPUSA article already mentions that it is an affiliate of TPAction, so your point is covered and satisfied.   With regard to WP:POVFORK, which Point of View are you referring to?  Looks like this would be WP:REDUNDANTFORK and should not be included in the TPUSA article.  But the overruling policy is WP:BLPGROUP; as you are aware, this has been discussed before including BLPN archived discussion. The citation does not explicitly state that TPUSA is complicit in this action - so adding "Troll Farm" to the TPUSA article is slandering TPUSA by association, if so, it is a violation of WP:BLPGROUP, does not satisfy WP:REDFLAG or WP:ONUS, and therefore should not be included in the TPUSA article.  In closing, yes there is only one grift, so it is our responsibility to be accurate and concise and not put shady shit in the TPUSA article when it clearly does not belong there, that is a violation of WP:SYNTH.  MaximusEditor (talk) 08:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , as I think I said, it gives an excuse to hive off criticism of TPUSA into the TPA article, since that is their vehicle for the most blatantly shady stuff, which would have the effect of whitewashing TPUSA, even though there is, in the end, only one grift and only one set of grifters. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

What's the connection between Students for Trump and Turning Point Action, other than TPA having purchased some of S4T's "assets, including their media assets," whatever that means? Students for Trump is still operating, with Kirk as chairman. Turning Point Action has been around since 2013, apparently. They reported contributions and grants of 270,100 in on their last tax return (2017, up from $7,300 in 2016), paid employees were Montgomery (the 80-something co-founder who died of Covid-19 recently) and Kirk. I don't see the need for creating a separate TPA page at this time. They've been flying under the radar for 6 years, and the only item that's surfaced so far is their misinformation operation which has probably been shot down for now. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC) It seems that a donation to the 501(c)(4) gets you a bumper sticker from the 501(c)(3) (reported by Right-Wing Watch, rated high for factual reporting). That contradicts your totally separate nonprofit business entities argument. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

While this discussion was going on, an editor turned the redirect into an article stump. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That action should probably be reverted. Not clear to me -- the real problem will come if/when someone decides to remove the overlapping information from this article.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but TPA was, unlike Students for Trump, always part of/associated with TPUSA. At this point I don't think there is enough distinct TPA content to warrant a split. If it were shown that TPA operated as a truly independent operation or if the volume of TPA content were to equal the TPUSA volume I would probably change my mind. Springee (talk) 13:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * As previously discussed, TPUSA is a 501(c)3 and TPAction is a 501(c)4, they are legally separate organizations BY LAW and that needs to be respected by Wikipedia. Yes, the WaPo article states that TPUSA and TPAction are affiliates, which was already covered and satisfied in the TPUSA article.  But the WaPo article DOES NOT indicate that TPUSA was involved in any way with "Troll Farm" - so adding the "Troll Farm" section to the TPUSA article is a clear violation of WP:SYNTH and, as in the past, raises serious concerns about WP:BLPGROUP, WP:REDFLAG, WP:ONUS, etc.  The bumper sticker argument does not justify slandering any organization let alone one that reportedly has a presence on over 2,000 college campuses - obviously, the correct location for "Troll Farms" is on TPAction/S4T and not on TPUSA, but as of now, all of the effort is to add "Troll Farms" to TPUSA and there has been zero effort on the S4T article or talk page, where it truly belongs according to Wikipedia policy. (That kind of kills the WP:POVFORK argument and also makes me wonder why it is only being added, by association, to the wrong article?). MaximusEditor (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a good point. Still, so long as TPA is a subtopic of this article then that content should be here within the appropriate affiliate subtopic.  So "troll farms" should not be where it is currently placed (never mind the LABEL issue) as its related to TPA's actions.  Springee (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Where did you get the legally separate organizations BY LAW info? The tax returns of Turning Point USA and of Turning Point Action are both readily available online (the links are to the 2017 returns). On Schedule R, Part II (Identification of Related Tax-Exempt Organizations they both list each other. On its 2018 tax return, Turning Point USA lists Turning Point Action as a 501(c)(4) (primary activity "education of students) while in the 2017 tax return TPA’s public charity status is 501(c)(3) and its primary activity is "charity". They are primary sources but sometimes WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. If "troll farms" is your only concern, why don't you edit that part? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC). They also reside resided at the same address (756 Main Street Suite C, Crown Point, IN). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I forgot to mention that Rally Forge, Queen Creek, AZ, is an independent contractor working for Turning Point USA who paid them $667,923 for advertising/marketing in 2017. Turning Point USA also had independent contractors providing accounting, printing, and speakers (Premiere Speakers Bureau). Turning Point Action had no independent contractors and a payroll of $14,000 (not including Montgomery and Fournier). Quoting WaPo: Smith, as part of written responses to The Post, deferred specific questions about the financial setup to a “marketing partner” called Rally Forge, which he said was running the program for Turning Point, the program being the domestic social media disinformation campaign carried out by a bunch of independent teenage contractors in AZ. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The Federal Government creates the Laws and the IRS requires Turning Point Action and Turning Point USA to file separate 990's using different Employer Identification Numbers (TPAction is 46-4331510 and TPUSA is 80-0835023) - which makes them legally separate organizations BY LAW. Let's compare them apples to apples; here is the IRS link for 2017 TPAction return and here is the IRS link for 2017 TPUSA return; as you can see, both links are directly with the IRS, and both are for the 2017 fiscal year.  As illustrated above, the Federal Government, by Law, classifies them as separate organizations and treats them differently depending on their 501(c) status.  Also, as you have pointed out, yes, TPUSA is listed on the Schedule R for TPAction and vice versa; which confirms that they are related / affiliated organizations, but they are legally different and separate entities.  Here are two definitions of "affiliation"-
 * 1)"Affiliation is defined in finance in a loan agreement as an entity other than a subsidiary directly or indirectly controlling, being controlled by or under common control with an entity. In commerce, two parties are affiliated if either can control the other, or if a third party controls both."
 * 2)Two companies are affiliated when one is a minority shareholder of the other, and an official attachment implies a contract or agreement between the affiliated companies. Generally, the "parent" company owns less than a 50% interest in the affiliated company and keeps its operations separate from the affiliate
 * Since TPAction is a 501(c)4 and TPUSA is a 501(c)3; they must operate independently because they would violate the terms of their nonprofit status (if they were the same, why would Turning Point bother creating two separate organizations?)
 * As I've said in the past. The ONE THING that they have in common, and the only thing your entire argument hinges on, is that Charlie Kirk controls both. Which doesn't warrant the violations WP:REDFLAG, WP:SYNTH, WP:SIZESPLIT, WP:BLPGROUP, WP:RECENTISM, etc. perpetrated on Turning Point USA. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, giving the impression that actions commited by TPACTION, has any involvment from TPUSA, is factually incorrect and plain wrong.
 * With regard to your second paragraph / Rally Forge; that is old information whereas the "Troll Farm" activity is this year (2020), so it is not really relevant to this discussion. And Independent Contractors work for multiple organizations, so it would not be uncommon for Rally Forge to have a contract with TPAction and one with TPUSA (which, again, proves my point that TPAction and TPUSA are separate entities). MaximusEditor (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC
 * That's too much to address right now, so just addressing your last paragraph (Rally Forge; that is old information). You're forgetting about Austin Smith, Turning Point USA's field director who as part of written responses to The Post, deferred specific questions about the financial setup to a “marketing partner” called Rally Forge, which he said was running the program for Turning Point. Is he also working for TPA, then, and are they sharing personnel other than the president? Lots of open questions. And again, why don't you remove the mention of "trolls" and "troll farms" from the article yourself? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that the editor who had added the "Troll farms" subparagraph reverted, so that's taken care of. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You think that political grifters respect the distinction between 501(c)3 and 501(c)4? That's adorable., We live in a world where the chief executive not only demanded that the Johnson Amendment no longer be enforced, but was also found to have used a 501(c)3 as a political slush fund to bribe prosecutors. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but are you referring to Boris Johnson when you refer to the Johnson Amendment? Please be more specific by providing a link. And the allegation that the Trump Foundation used a slush fund to bribe prosecutors is a BLP vio unless you have sources that back it up and verify that he was prosecuted/charged/indicted for bribery; otherwise you might want to revert/redact your statement? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 21:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , see . BLP does not require us to deny the facts. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , that article is dated 2016, it was an allegation and the case lacked evidence to move forward. You didn't just imply, you stated ...but was also found to have used a 501(c)3 as a political slush fund to bribe prosecutors. That statement is patently false, it is a BLP vio to make such a statement. I suggest you strike that part of your comment. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 13:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , you are aware, I take it, that the sequence of events is unchallenged? Trump admitted using political donations "to buy access and consideration for his business dealings", he made a donation to Pam Bondi's campaign, Pam Bondi then declined to pursue the case against Trump "University", Trump "University" was pursued as a scam, Trump settled just before the election (as he so often does), Trump "University" is now defunct and Pam Bondi had to repay the money because it was made illegally from his charity, which was subsequently wound up as fraudulent and Trump was fined $2m. In addition to the penalty to the IRS for the illegal campaign contribution.
 * But sure, it was totally not a bribe because of precedent set in McDonnell v. United States, which ruled that taking a Rolex watch, loans, trips and other items in exchange for arranging meetings that further a business interest was just fine.
 * This is the world of white collar crime. It's not party political, William J. Jefferson is a Democrat. Money poisons politics. An illegal payment was made, a decision was made that benefited Trump's business, and the underlying transaction triggered a fraud case for which Trump paid a $2m fine. The problem of proving intent only raises the question of whether this was routine political corruption or something worse. I'm happy to settle for "corrupt" as a label for the entire thing, because that is 100% supported by sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Why are you pushing a discussion about Trump on TPUSA, especially citing irrelevant information in defense of your BLP vio? Let's see, we already have WP:GUILT, do we now need WP:SEQUENCE? It's not a good plan to cherrypick old media spin and omit evidence that dispels the false allegations relevant to your BLP vio. You are conflating the two IRS fines while preaching to the choir about his misuse of charity funds and the $2M fine to the IRS. Regardless, it has nothing to do with the $25k or the $2500 fine he paid, even though the campaign had not yet begun when the foundation made that contribution per the following sources:
 * WaPo article
 * New Records Shed Light+NYTimes
 * Snopes doesn't mention anything about the $25k contribution to Bondi in the $2M IRS fine. It appears you conflated the $2500 with the $2M. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 17:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * One more add quoting CBS: Amira Fox, the chief assistant state attorney, said in a memo about the case that the complaint against Bondi was “insufficient on its face to conduct a criminal investigation” and was based almost entirely on media coverage. Almost entirely on media coverage is a pretty sad state of affairs for WP, too. Quoting Bloomberg: ”The encyclopedia’s reliance on outside sources, primarily newspapers, means it will be only as diverse as the rest of the media—which is to say, not very.” 21:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The relevance is per my original statement: right wing grifters abuse the 501(c)3/4 blurred line quite freely and shamelessly.
 * Yes, we are less diverse in our core factual statements than the media as a whole. That's because "the media" spans the gamut from Wonkette to InfoWars, whereas we draw statements of fact only from the narrow subset of media who are actually reliable, and even there we apply discernment, rejecting obvious motivated reasoning. This is a feature, not a bug. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Right Wing Watch Allegations and speculation
yes, this is attributed, but so what? Why is this speculative allegation, not mentioned by any other source, notable enough for inclusion? Trying to reconnect (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , We should not include Right Wing Watch as a source. They are useful as a pointer to what may be "out there", but nothing more. You're free to remove that i would say. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Trying to reconnect (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not the only source. I just reverted and linked a second one that was already used in the article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If they are covered by WP:RSs we have no reason to censor by excluding this. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * But these speculative allegations are not covered by any RS, that's the point, only by this non notable, partisan activist source. Unless I am missing something, the second source that was added (CNBC) by does not say anything about alleged tax code violations. Trying to reconnect (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * the key word is 'if'. If someone has such sources please either add them to the article or bring them to this discussion. I had a quick look and found Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 271 and Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 159. From these, I'm unconvinced RWW is suitable for statements of fact. While we are attributing RWW, claiming someone violated the tax code is IMO rarely suitable for a statement of opinion. Statement of opinion is something like 'TPUSA is a right wing organisation with little credibility'. So I agree with Guy and Trying to reconnect on that point, we cannot use RWW as the sole source. If some other reliable source find RWW's claims to be credible enough to publish them, even if they attribute them to RWW, I may change my mind but no evidence has been presented for this thus far. Meanwhile I looked at CNBC and do not see where it makes any claim of a tax code violation. Instead it simply notes the plans to set up a new organisation which can be involved in political campaigns while noting that TPUSA cannot. Unless I missed it, nowhere does it actually suggest that TPUSA was illicitly involved in political campaigns or that there was otherwise a tax code violation. Possibly the campaign to launch this new organisations was itself a violation, who knows, but the source doesn't provide any suggestion. Nil Einne (talk) 12:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Had a quick look and didn't find any reliable sources mentioning these alleged violations. BTW, although without the allegations of a tax code violation these claims seem fairly irrelevant. I.E. an organisation set up be involved in political campaigns was involved in a campaign against someone? Who cares if thee isn't some reason why it's particularly significant? But still, I considered moving this to the Turning Point Action section without any unsupported by RS claims of some violation to try and keep people happy. But actually I can't because CNBC doesn't even say it happened. It just says they uncovered strong evidence there was a plan to set up such an organisation with the congressperson as their target. Nil Einne (talk) 12:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Forgive me I'm going to focus on editor behavior for a moment. So many edits related to this article have been confrontational.  It is refreshing to see a civil content disagreement resolved through reasoned talk page discussion. Also, my apologies for accusing editors of being civil and reasonable.   Springee (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Balancing inclusion of controversies in the lead
Hey all. I hope you've enjoyed my bold rewrite of the lead; I believe it covered most concerns, but feel free to point out anything that might need adressing. Just following on from a discussion with, it might be worth doing some consensus-building to find a way to introduce TPUSA's controversies while still maintaining balance and having undue weight. Currently, the mention of controversies other than the Professor Watchlist (since that's the main source of notability), is encapsulated in this sentence at the end of the second paragraph: While I personally think that is good for the meantime, the main questions to consider here might be: I'd particularly love to possibly work on the last point, since it's a bit awkward and might be ambiguous to people unfamiliar with the general group. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 03:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * how much detail do we want to include in the lead?
 * are their any so extraordinarily significant controversies that they might need a special callout?
 * how can we improve the wording of "their beliefs, their means of advocacy, and the organization itself"?