Talk:Turning Point USA

Copyright violations

The "About the Founder" and parts of "In the Media" appear to be copied from the copyrighted page:

http://turningpointusa.net/boardofdirectors/

--NapoliRoma (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Controversy over controversial controversy claim in "Controversy" section

This edit removed a large section of well sourced text reading: "First appearing on November 21st, 2016, Turning Point USA also operates a website called Professor Watchlist in order to 'expose and document college professors who discriminate against conservative students, promote anti-American values, and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom.' The website lists academics who “promote anti-American, leftwing propaganda in the classroom” according to a blog post by Charlie Kirk. Tips are accepted from the public, and over 200 professors are currently listed. The website has been criticized as racist and pro-fascist, using surveillance type propaganda to manipulate ideas of truth, equality, and freedom."

The removal was explained as "I removed content that contained false information and also no indication that anything was controversial about the idea discussed."

The editor is not clear about what they feel is "false information" and everything is quite well sourced. The section did not say anything was controversial about the "idea". Rather, it said there has been controversy: Turning Point (obviously) thinks the project is a good idea, others -- as sourced -- have criticized it. That is the essence of controversy. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Proposed merge with Hypeline News

No signs of notability of Hypeline News independent of Turning Point USA, and half of the content in Hypeline News is a quotation from their website and doesn't really belong anyway. So, a merger would be essentially an acknowledgement at Turning Point USA that Hypeline News exists. Largoplazo (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Move. Zero notability beyond the affiliation with Turning Point USA. JSFarman (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
• I decided to be bold and I just turned Hypeline into a redirect to TPUSA. JSFarman (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Clean-Up

I've gone ahead and cleaned up the article. The basic changes include:

• I removed a lot of redundant facts stated in the article's lead that are repeated in the body
• Removed a lot of excessive facts about Charlie Kirk that are already on his page (we don't need two Charlie Kirk articles)
• Restructured the controversy section and condensed the sections concerning affiliated groups and individuals (we don't need each sentence to have its own break in-between).
• Removed the "In the Media" section, because quite frankly, this section - while well-sourced - boiled down to just a collection of interviews with Charlie Kirk; again, extremely redundant and somewhat self-promoting (better fit for his article).
• As per the above section detailing how the article for Hypeline News has since been deleted and turned into a redirect for TPUSA, there's really no reason for the bit in the lead about Hypeline since it's just another project of TPUSA that's not nearly as noteworthy as, say, the Professor Watchlist. There's also the fact that the one and only source for the bit about Hypeline was from Hypeline itself - once more, very self-promoting.

104.52.53.152 (talk) 01:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

"has been described as an alt-right organization" in Lead

The two reliable sources cited, New Republic and The Daily Dot, do not describe the organization as alt-right. The only sources cited that support that claim are "SocialistWorker.org" and "AcadaDemeBlog", neither of which are WP:RS. This line is not supported and should be removed from the Lead. Marquis de Faux (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Allegations of Racism in Lede

The racism allegations against Turning Point USA do not belong in the lede of this article because they are not yet reliably substantiated nor have they been shown to have impacted the organization to a degree meriting the info's position at the top of the article. The existing source for these allegations cite (1) a recently fired employee and (2) an unnamed source. There can be a section in the article about the issue, but it is neither reliable nor impactful enough to rise to the lede. It's inclusion right now is flippant to the seriousness of the allegation and disingenuous about its veracity.

To include in lede, one of these things (or something like it) should first occur: (a) accusations are filed in a non-frivilous civil suit; (b) Turning Point confirms the allegations; or (c) the allegations have a significant and lasting effect on the organization.

(the article cited: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/a-conservative-nonprofit-that-seeks-to-transform-college-campuses-faces-allegations-of-racial-bias-and-illegal-campaign-activity) Lukacris (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

That isn't a standard adopted by the community as far as I know. The relevant guideline is WP:LEAD--which only says that the lead should summarize the subject's most important points. An unsubstantiated, unimpactful allegation can certainly be one of its most important points, especially if it received widespread media attention. In this case, the story was covered not only by The New Yorker but also by other reliable sources such as The Daily Beast, The Hill, and Newsweek. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman I simply don't understand your point that something can be "one of its most important points" if it is also unimpactful and unsubstantiated. We should be mindful of the political nature of this organization that tends to motivate a degree of news coverage out of whack with what's really there. Also, right-wing groups get smeared as racist on a fairly regular basis. I bring this up because the number of publications that ran with this story does not necessary bear on the accusations' veracity or impact. More news stories with the same suspect sourcing don't help. Now, if these poorly-sourced news stories have a palpable effect on the organization rising to the level of being "one of [turning point's] most important points," then it should go in the lede-- this is not the case. If the accusations were themselves more reliable, that might also qualify it for lede. Lukacris (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

If I publicly accused Meryl Streep of animal sacrifice and media outlets ran with my accusations (without reliable corroboration), then it wouldn't belong in her lede unless it had some meaningful impact on her biography. Lukacris (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The standards for inclusion here are WP:V, WP:WEIGHT and WP:LEDE.

If someone files a civil suit -- whether or not you or anyone else judges it to be "non-frivolous" -- it may or may not merit inclusion here. It depends on coverage by reliable sources.

It's rather ludicrous to expect an organization to say, "Yes, we are racist." Heck, white supremacist organizations playing word games to say they aren't white supremacist/racist/etc. are twelve for ten cents. (That some organizations are caught with their pants down far enough to spout b.s. pseudo-apologies for "actions by some of (their) members which may have been seen as inappropriate" not withstanding.)

What constitutes a "significant and lasting effect" for a tiny group that's all of five years old? Are we waiting for a report saying they've had trouble recruiting over the past decade because of an extensive and on-going series of allegations?

Let's try an absurdly obvious case that would fail your criteria but obviously be a defining characteristic of a group: An organization forms and, within 3 months of forming, every source discussing the group says unequivocally in the first sentence that they are a racist organization. No lawsuit, no self-identification, no "significant, lasting impact". In that case, as in EVERY case, it's a matter of sources and weight.

At the moment, we have high quality sources reporting the charge. I'd say the section is appropriate. For the lede, summary of a section is appropriate. Heck, at present it's a rather small part of the lede, at the very end. Keep in mind that that short summary is for the longest section of the article (other than the catch-all "Other controversies"). - SummerPhD^SummerPhD 01:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)'

My primary disagreement with SummerPhD is that these sources are not high quality. The sources of the articles are a recently-fired employee and an unnamed source-- The sources are perfectly adequate to show that the allegations exist and what they are, but not whether they are reliable, damning, legally problematic, or at all important. No sane person takes at face value public criticisms of an organization by a person it just fired. Right wing political groups are publicly maligned as racist so often that it's practically white noise, so the existence of the allegation itself does not ipso facto prove its significance. Including the allegation in the lede is not a neutral choice; its inclusion implies a judgment that the allegation is significant.

Re: admission by the organization: It's not ludicrous to hold out for the organization confirming that some of the events from the accusation did occur (and probably that the particular person was fired). I bring up the non-frivilous civil suit as a possible standard because there are sanctions that exist in court but not in the press about the veracity of factual allegations (btw an actual judge judges whether a suit is frivolous (i.e., defendant succeeds on a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss)), and because an employment discrimination lawsuit will almost-certainly follow if there is truth or provability to the allegations.

I know I'm repeating myself, but this distinction is important: Sources reliably supporting the allegation's existence are not adequate. We need a source showing that the allegations are significant. Significance cannot be implied merely by the number of outlets who covered the story because of the political context here. Lukacris (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The allegation is significant. That determination was made by editors at multiple reputable news outlets (The New Yorker, The Daily Beast, The Hill, Newsweek). Yes, significance can be implied by the number of outlets that covered it. That's how it's regularly done here. These outlets decided that the allegations were credible and newsworthy enough to publish and promote. There's nothing unique about these allegations or the sources that exempts them from our usual practices. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The sources are not a recently-fired employee and an unnamed source. The sources are The New Yorker, The Daily Beast, The Hill and Newsweek. Those are high quality, reliable sources. The issue is not whether the accusations are "reliable, damning, legally problematic, or at all important". The issues are whether the material in the section is verifiable, it's weight and whether we summarize it in the lede. The existence of the allegations is verifiable (cited to several reliable sources). The strength of those sources supported the creation of the section. The existence and size of that section has us summarizing it in the lede. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with Summer that the lead should include material proportionally to the body. But I do agree with the broader point. The content is verifiable because it is supported by reliable sources. And once you cross the verifiability threshold, questions of weight/lead generally have nothing to do with the strength of the sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

SummerPhDv2.0, I think we're talking past each other on the sourcing issue. Those articles reliably attest to the existence of the allegations and are adequate sources for that fact. But the articles' sources are a recently-fired employee and a John Doe. For that reason, the articles do not adequately support the fact of the accusation's veracity. The remaining question then is whether the existence of the accusation is significant enough for the lede. It's been written about by several publishers, but I'm not convinced that one-round of cursory press coverage is sufficient absent some palpable effect on the organization or buttressing of the allegations' veracity (this point is debatable). Lukacris (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Placing the allegations in the lead section does not imply anything about their veracity. We place unproven allegations in the lead sections of our articles all the time. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree, Dr. Fleischman. However, it does imply significance, significance comes from veracity or from effect, and I see neither here. At any rate, I think I've made my point already and am content to table the issue. Lukacris (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

No, that's not generally how it's done here. I mean, you're entitled to that reasonable position, and there's nothing in our community standards forbidding it, but it probably wouldn't garner a consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• Participants in this discussion may be interested in a discussion taking place at Talk:Alt-right#Proper attention to the term's unsteady breadth. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Lukacris: DO NOT REMOVE OTHER EDITORS' COMMENTS FROM TALK PAGES There are a very limited number of circumstances in which this is allowed (see WP:TPO) and removing a neutral pointer to another related discussion is not one of them. If you do it again, I will bring your action to the attention of an administrator. I hope that is clear. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Discussion has been moved below, please do not post here

January 2018 I'm proposing that the article Charlie Kirk (activist) be merged / redirected into this article. Kirk is only notable as part of the group; there's no need to maintain two stand-alone articles. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC) I second this purposal. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 07:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC) Decided to be bold and redirect Charlie Kirk to Turning Point USA after 10 days and 2 people voting yes. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC) I appreciate the bold move, but the consensus is to merge Charlie Kirk, not to BLAR it. This means you have to copy the content, not just blank it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC) I applogize Dr. Fleischman. I fixed it. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC) February 2018 I've re-created the Kirk page and cleaned it up. In my estimation, he clearly fulfills Wikipedia's standards for notability. If you disagree and believes he fails notability, feel free to start an afd. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC) No, we have consensus and you are editing against it. Start an RfC if you wish. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC) You can't determine on the page that is not the subject that it cannot have its own standalone page. If you believe Kirk does not merit a page you can start a formal afd. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC) @Doug Weller:, do you mind assisting here? [1] Thanks. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC) This is the way to handle a disputed merger. Not an AfD or an RfC. Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. Doug Weller talk 20:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC) @Doug Weller:, so would it be correct to say the Kirk article should stand now and if users think it should be merged, they should run a formal merge request through Wikipedia:Proposed mergers? If that is the case, should Dr. Fleischman revert himself here[2]? If I am mistaken in regards to the process, please let me know. Many thanks. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Everything is spelled out at WP:MERGE. WP:Proposed mergers is optional. And it isn't officially a forum for resolving merge disputes that arise on article talk pages, though I wouldn't be surprised if it's sometimes used for that anyway. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Well, WP:MERGE says "Controversial mergers: Most merger proposals are handled directly by the editors involved in those articles. But if you believe that your proposal will be controversial, then please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers to request extra attention from uninvolved editors. So of course it can be worked out on the talk page, but this is the suggested way to handle controversial mergers, which I interpret as being ones that can't be worked out on a talk page. I usually suggest it when there's a dispute. Doug Weller talk 21:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC) @DrFleischman:, would you consider reverting yourself then for the time being? [3] These two articles are by no means an "obvious" merge. Actually, I don't see it fulfilling any of the four stated reasons for WP:MERGEREASON. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Well I think the merge can certainly be justified under reasons 1, 2, and 3, but this isn't "my" merge, rather it was more the merge of K.e.coffman (who proposed it) and Jamesharrison2014 (who implemented it). It would be helpful to get their reaction. And FWIW I don't think this counts as a dispute that wasn't worked out on the talk page. It was worked out on the talk page and consensus was readily obtained. Then a editor came in later and disagreed with the existing consensus. That's a perfect setup for an RfC. But that's a minor procedural quibble; if Plot Spoiler wants to take this to WP:Proposed mergers then I don't particularly care. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC) @Doug Weller: WP:Proposed mergers isn't for de-merging merged articles, unless I'm mistaken. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC) I agree with Dr. Fleischman it is justified under 1, 2, and 3. We gained consensus and there was not push back or vote against it. I came in after 10 days of no commenting and merged the pages. Kirk is not independently notable. He is notable for his organization. There is a policy if you want to revert it but you can't just decide to do it. You must file and RfC and then it could possibly be amended. As it stands there was no aditional comments and after 10 days the consensus was to merge. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Comment -- since it was my proposal, I obviously support the merge. The subject is only notable in association with the group, so it makes sense to cover him here, as it typically done for minor groups like this. If Kirk goes on to something else notable, he may warrant a stand-alone article. WP:TOOSOON at this point. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Comment Agreed. Even his book is titled Time for a Turning Point. All anyone know him by is Turning Point. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Comment No, proposed mergers is only a way of dealing with possibly contested mergers. The problem withh doing it the way it's beenn done here is that editors at the other article who aren't active here haven't been notified and given the possibility of joining in the discussion. If they object there could be problems. Doug Weller talk 07:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC) @Doug Weller: I have to respectfully disagree. I checked to make sure that a tag was placed on the page notifying them of the discussion. See here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charlie_Kirk_(activist)&oldid=821843382 at the top of the page. Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. (talk) 11:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC) @Doug Weller: So what's the next step? Would it be appropriate for you to revert Fleischman here [4] and then they can start a formal proposed merger if they'd like? Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC) No. But it would be appropriate/courteous to notify some of the editors of the merged article. I'm not sure which. Of course you could argue that if it's on their watchlist they will have noticed and silence give consent. I'm not sure I like that argument though. I'm taking no action here. Doug Weller talk 17:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC) @Doug Weller: They're clearly just going to edit war and revert me if I re-create the page. What should I do? Do these three editors have the de facto ability to deny the existence of a page? Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC) WP:DRN? Note that two of the editors are good experienced editors. And I really don't see the problem. There's a redirect so anyone looking for him will come here. If there's more later on that isn't really about Turning Point and his section gets large, that would be a reasonable time to demerge. Doug Weller talk 17:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC) I've re-created the Charlie Kirk page. I respectfully ask the editors here not to edit war and continue to revert and instead launch a formal proposed merger in which more than three people can participate. Three people does not a consensus make. Many thanks. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC) As I mentioned on your user talk, if you don't self-revert this is going to end up at WP:AE, not at WP:PM. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC) @Doug Weller: Is it not eminently reasonable for the other editors here to do a proposed merger which involves the feedback of more than three people? We are are speaking of an individual who has had personal profiles in Bloomberg[5], Atlantic[6] and more. Written a book published by Simon & Schuster, one of the leading publishing houses in the world[7]. Advised a presidential campaign on attracting the millennial vote[8][9] and been publicly praised by the president[10]. This seems to be a very clear subject of interest for a Wikipedia page. At least there should be a fair hearing here in which evidence and Wikipedia policy is brought to bear, which minimally occurred in the merge discussion above. It does not seem reasonable, nor backed by policy, for three editors to have a veto on the existence of a page without going through the proper channels. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC) It's a content dispute. You are only going to get into trouble if you edit war. I've already suggested DRN. Doug Weller talk 19:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC) April 2018 Two editors are edit warring against the above consensus. They've provided no justification, so at this point I see no reason to consider departing from in. Pinging prior contributors to see where they stand. K.e.coffman Jamesharrison2014 Plot Spoiler Doug Weller --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC) Also pinging the edit warriors. The lorax Lionelt --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC) Do you call a bunch of banned sockpuppets talking to each other consensus? Even Doug Weller said this whole scheme to evade WP:Proposed mergers was fishy. – Lionel(talk) 09:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC) Your statement is false. Here's my justification "This article fails WP:MERGEREASON. Consensus has changed WP:CCC. To merge this you have to go to WP:RM". – Lionel(talk) 09:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC) That's not a content-based argument. We have no idea why you think restoring Charlie Kirk is superior. Not to the material is currently in duplicate because you only unmerged halfway. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC) Jamesharrison2014 and Plot Spoiler will not be responding. Jamesharrison2014 has been indefinitely blocked for socking, personal attacks and edit warring. Plot Spoiler has been indefinitely blocked for undisclosed paid editing. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Cite check tag

In going through a number of sources for this article, I noticed that perhaps half of the content I checked failed verification, either completely or partially. That's why I added the cite check tag. Once the article receives a thorough combing over then we can remove the tag. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Would you please elaborate as to what facts need to be cited/have more reliable sources? I could not find any red tags on the article (maybe I missed them). Thank you for helping this page remain reliable RSquier (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by red tags, but what I mean is that every source needs to be checked to make sure that it verifies the content it purports to verify. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry DrFleischman, I was mistaken, ignore the above comment. I found some indicators in the article such as "dead link" and "by whom" in which I fixed. Under "Racism allegations"I Added 2 citations for criticism where "by whom" indicator was present, removed indicator. Under "Denial of recognition on campus" I Replaced noted dead link with an active one, removed indicator. If I was not supposed to remove those indicators, I apologize. There are other flagged sources that I currently do not have the time to fix. Is this what you meant by failed verification, or can you please indicate which sources in particular are not properly verifying the information please? Thanks. --RSquier (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Your help is appreciated, however:

• Editors with conflicts of interest shouldn't edit conflicted articles, even if they're not being paid.
• {{dead}} and {{by whom}} tags are separate issues from the {{cite check}} tag.
• Breitbart is not a reliable source.

What I mean by the cite check tag is that literally every source needs to be checked. When I reviewed portions of the article early last month, I discovered that much of the content wasn't supported by the cited sources. The source would say one thing, but our article would say another. Examples of my fixes are here, here, here. Another issue was that a whole bunch of sources didn't meet our reliability standard, so I removed them. However it was a tedious process. Someone needs to go through every single sentence and make sure the source it cites to (i) is reliable and (ii) says what our content says. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand now, I thought you meant some links were dead or unreliable. Now that I know you removed unreliable links, this is more understandable. Thanks. RSquier (talk) 03:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I added sources, and fixed some dead links. Everything appears to me as if it is properly cited after these revisions. I did not remove any tags or flags (except when I replaced a dead link), so they are still there. I know a WP:COI has been tacked onto my talk page for this page, and as shown below, as well in my talk page, I addressed these. I still would be hesitant to remove any tags, flags, or banners so I respectfully ask that the article is reviewed again, by a less biased person than me (face it, we all have our biases), and remove the cite check tag. Please let me know once this has been done, and if it needs more sources. RSquier (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to remove section

While going through sources in the section titled "Potentially illegal campaign activity," only a few sources seemed to be about this subject, and were just small articles stating that they were involved in illegal campaign activity with no proof. Other sources had alleged "proof" I propose to remove this section. -RSquier (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Are the sources reliable? If so the content should probably remain. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree with RSquier. No mainstream media sources cited. The best source is the New Yorker and the that is one source opinion. There is no evidence in any articles proving the claim. To allege illegal activity it should be proven by multiple REPUTABLE sources not one allegation. Would recommend deleting this section without any other sourcing. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 05:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Not just the New Yorker. Also The Chronicle of Higher Education. Neither of those are small articles. Obviously RSquier would want to remove any negative information and has a serious conflict of interest which needs to be addressed. I note that he hasn't posted since he was told about this on his talk page. I see no reason to remove this section. Doug Weller talk 13:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Doug. The New Yorker and the Chronicle are not only mainstream but extremely reliable. The Chronicle is far and away the most established and widely circulated newspaper focusing on higher ed. Reliable sources are not required to share "proof" with their readers. There is no requirement to provide more than one reliable source for any given content. I do have concerns about the neutrality of some of the language (which seems rather alarmist and misleading) but that's a separate issue. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Haha, what a farce. I'm very tempted to start a sockpuppet investigation here. Carl Fredrik ^talk 23:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

No, you definitely don't have to worry about that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

All due respect, you can't just open a sockpuppet investigation because someone agrees with someone. You disagree with me and I didn't accuse you of being a sockpuppet. Feel free to run a check user on me. We are not the same person. Also, these are accusations the language is not neutral. For instance, "Turning Point USA has been secretly involved in influencing student government elections at a number of colleges and universities." This has no source and it is stated as a fact. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been busy with other things such as school. I initially did not see any reputable sources in the section,I misread the article from "The Chronicle" as it only states "Evidence of a conservative group’s influence in student-government campaigns can be found on campuses from coast to coast." to non subscribers, and I did not realize it was a subscription site, so I believed the source to be invalid (I will give the benefit of the doubt that it has more valid info than what I saw. The article from the New Yorker appeared to be merely speculative, and upon further reading, has more merit than I initially noticed. I would propose that the section would state that they have been accused of the illegal campaign activity, as for as far as I can tell, no indictment has been made against TPUSA. Again, I would not remove it, and I apologize, especially to Dr. Fleischman, for posting the proposal, then waiting this long to reply again. RSquier (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Full disclosure, I heard allegations on my campus about TPUSA influencing Student Givernment elections, however, rumors are not a reliable source, however the ones in the article upon my further review seem to have more substance. My only concern is that it paints the allegations as true, which even in the New Yorker article, were speculative. I do not know what the chronicle had to say, as I do not have full access to that article.RSquier (talk) 03:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppeting/Meatpuppetry/COI concerns

Wrong venue. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The relationship here between User:Jamesharrison2014 and User:Michael Heil here looks suspect. What is additionally concerning is User:Michael Heil's stated connection to Kent University, while there is a publicized conflict between students at Kent and Turning Point. Makes this a potential WP:COI issue. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC) Plot Spoiler: This page is for discussing improvements to the article. Accusations of inappropriate editing here without substantial proof may be seen as a personal attack. I do not see any evidence to suggest sock or meat puppetry here and the COI question seems a bit of a stretch. (Full disclosure: I coauthored a paper several years ago with an ABD then associated with Kent State. She has since earned her degree and we correspond occasionally.) If you have puppetry concerns, please take them to WP:SPI. If you have COI concerns, please raise the issue on the user's talk page and, if needed, at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. - SummerPhDv2.0 23:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC) A couple things: As stated above this is not the place for this. 2. Feel free to look at edit history just because we agree on one issue does not make us sockpuppets. 3. You are required to sign your posts so I recommend doing that in the future. Should you chose to report this you might want to have some proof as they require clear evidence (which you will not have as we are not the same person) in sockpuppet investigations. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Also, I do agree since he goes to Kent State that it is a clear COI and he should not be editing that part of the article. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Downfall

Jamesharrison2014 and Michael Heil, I would like to understand how you two think that we're acting in compliance with our community standards by edit warring to add content that describes Turning Point USA's "downfall" and cites such as Facebook, Breitbart, libertyhangout.org. There are many other things wrong with this content but that's a start. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I believe that the information removed is important to the current state of Turning Point USA. For that section to be removed entirely removed is getting rid of important controversy within the organization that is indeed fact. To remove it would be trying to shape the Turning Point USA page not with facts but with a selection of facts. All information that has no opinion stated should be allowed on Wikipedia. Perhaps not all of the content should be in but, not all of it needs to be removed. Also, Libertyhangout.org is a primary source when talking about Kaitlin Bennett's connection to her statements in resignation. Michael Heil (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok well if that's what you're concerned about, did you notice that the Tomi Lahren controversy was already covered in article, and in more depth? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you familiar with our policy saying that we are not permitted to interpret primary sources? (Such as pointing to a Facebook post and describing it has "singling someone out?") --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

LibertyHangout is the direct resignation letter though and not a social media platform. I was not interpreting the source but directly stating and quoting it. I will admit I didn't notice the Tomi Lahren controversy was in there twice. Perhaps I will just add it to other controversies because it is still important to be there. Would there be any issue with that?Michael Heil (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but you cannot use a self-published primary source as reference for criticising an organisation. We have no way of knowing if what is said is in any way reliable, accurate or notable. Wait until it's covered, if ever, by a reliable third party. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Here are your 3rd party sources:

http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/12/shole-organization-tpusa-chapter-disbands-citing-awful-leadership/ (University paper) http://www.kentwired.com/latest_updates/article_150da234-1053-11e8-a675-0b661d4f9580.html https://www.rawstory.com/feed-items/turning-point-usa-chapter-at-kent-state-disbands-over-diaper-debacle/ http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/10/19/turning-point-usa-activists-wear-diapers-to-protest-safe-space-culture/ https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/student-activist-quits-turning-points-usa-shithole-organization Fine lets not inturpret them. Lets rewrite the facts. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

They're not my sources. It's you adding the content, so your responsibility to provide them. At a quick look, I'd suggest that the talkingpointsmemo.com appears to be the most appropriate. Why not use that? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd be happy to but everytime I add them I get reverted. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Those aren't reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Caller is a nationally syndicated source. It is even recognized on Wikipedia along with Talking Points Memo. Where does it say we can't use nationally recognized media? Dr. Fleischman These same sources are already used in the article including Breitbart, The Daily Caller, and school newspapers. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

It is a POV site, and does not fulfill the requirements of WP:RS, which you should read. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Yup. The TPM article and the story itself are pretty gossipy, but it seems like this could warrant a sentence or two. Nothing at all in that source suggests anything about a "downfall", however. That's a leap, at best. Grayfell (talk) 05:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Whoever is editing from Riverside, NJ should stop immediately as there is currently no consensus here to add the Kent State content. Which, I might add, is also already covered in the "Student activities" section. Sigh. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Here are the contributions of this editor.[11] Doug Weller talk 20:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit to Kirk section

Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "Rm infobox -- not a bio article; out of place here. Rm self-citation & unneeded section break. Reduce intricate detail about Boy Scouts". In short, the infobox and some of self-cited, self-congratulatory content is undue here. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

You messed up some of the inline citations FYI. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean the Atlantic ref? It was like this before my edit; pls see prior version. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: no, I'm referring to the fact that the first two paras of the background section no longer have inline citations. Respectfully yours Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I've not edited the Background section previously, but looking at it now, I see that it was largely repeating the content that's now in Kirk's section. I combined the first two sections (Background and Student activities) into a single one with this edit. This took care of the lack of inline refs. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree this is not a bio article the boy scouts stuff is irrelevant also the fact he is a Republican is too. A non-profit and even this article says non-partisan. Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

501(c)(3) Section

Two problems with this section: First, the title is terrible. Second, I'm not sure there's any merit to the claim that Turning Point USA overstepped into impropriety with respect to their 501(c)(3) status (The sourced article is behind a paywall). 501(c)(3) status prohibits non-profits from working to support/oppose a "candidate for elective public office." Unless I'm mistaken, a student government election does not constitute "elective public office" because the student body—not the public—is the electorate. If the source article argues from a mistaken premise, it's not a reliable source. Lukacris (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I think I solved the first problem. On the second, I agree that statement is dubious and is likely a misrepresentation of the source. (The Chronicle is generally a very reliable outlet.) It's also weasely--whose questions? We need to track down that source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Or we could just remove it altogether—It's not obvious to me that this section is justified at all. Lukacris (talk) 04:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The section (now 2 sections) is based on reliable sources. Why wouldn't we cover them? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The Chronicle article says " Tax experts told The Chronicle that Turning Point’s connection to the event may have violated federal rules prohibiting 501(c)(3) charities from engaging in political activity — the event had a pro-Trump tone, and a Turning Point staff member promised on Facebook that "expenses will be covered" for students who attended. Mr. Kirk responded by saying Turning Point funds were not used to transport students to the town hall. Sally Wagenmaker, a lawyer who represents Turning Point, said, "This was a town-hall forum put on by a news outlet, not a political campaign event."" Doug Weller talk 10:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Doug! This definitely supports the inclusion of the material, though it could stick closer to the source. As to Turning Point's response, the lawyer's comment was hogwash and unworthy of inclusion. (News outlet? Give me a break.) But we should certainly say that TP has disputed the tax experts' charge. I will edit the article accordingly. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

One more thing, Doug before we can conform that sentence to the Chronicle source. What does the source say is the "connection the event?" What event and what connection? This is critical because our article says it was TP's general involvement "at a number of colleges and universities" that led to the tax experts' change, when from the bit you excerpted it was clearly about some specific involvement in a specific event. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The first part of that paragraph is "In mid-October, Mr. Kirk appeared at Fox News’s Millennial Town Hall, in Las Vegas, seated next to Donald Trump Jr. and Lara and Eric Trump". Doug Weller talk 19:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok so the tax exemption stuff had nothing to do with influencing student government elections? It seems like the paragraph needs a full re-write. Are you willing to do it yourself since you have access to the source? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I got my hands on the source and will work on this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I fixed the problem. The source is a massive expose with lots more usable content than what's currently included. It'll take me some time to get through it all. Top of my Wikipedia todo list. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

West Point

An editor added material about Kirk wanting to go to West Point, but his application being rejected, but my understanding was that one doesn't actually apply to the USMA, one needs to be sponsored by a member of the House of Representatives. Do I have this wrong, or is it that one is sponsored and then applies? Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It's complicated. See: United States Military Academy#Admissions requirements.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

deletion of edits

Several edits made by me were deleted by DrFleischman 18:21, 12 April 2018 with the edit summary
"undid 4 good faith revs by BoogaLouie per WP:UNDUE, WP:QUOTEFARM - we're writing an encyclopedia article, not a compendium of random quotes - please summarize in a way that demonstrates the material's significance)"

• If someone has been accused of saying something they didn't say is it including "random quotes" to include what they were accused of saying?
  In December 2016, Turning Point falsely quoted Nancy Pelosi in a facebook post as saying: "Employers cutting hours is a good thing. It then gives that person time to pursue their dreams and passions.". (italics is edit DrFleischman deleted)

• As chief fundraiser for the organization, Charlie Kirk described his success at fundraising among wealthy, older conservatives to Joseph Guinto of Politico: “You can’t watch Fox News without seeing five or six segments a day about the nuttiness on college campuses. .... You pair that nuttiness up with people in their 60s and 70s who are beginning to map out where they want a significant portion of their wealth to go, and they’re saying, ‘I don’t want my money to go to my university. It’s not representing my values.’ Then we come along.”
  

This a "random quote"? It's reasonably short and illuminating description of the man's success by the man.

I restored this but trimmed down the quote.

• The third deletion was of this short paragraph:
  

Despite being a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, and not legally allowed to "endorse candidates or support political campaigns”, the organization did "work for two different candidates in the 2016 presidential race", according to what former employees told Jane Mayer of the New Yorker. The organization also "stocked its annual conference with a plethora of pro-Trump speakers, including Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump’s wife, Lara Trump."
These accusations appeared in the New Yorker and apparently have enough credibility to also be mentioned in Politico.

This included information already in the article, so I trimmed it also. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

References

replies

I think you missed my point. No one is disputing that these people said these things. My issue with this material lies not in its verifiability but in its noteworthiness. Why don't we quote everything Kirk and the others have ever said? Because we're writing an encyclopedia article, and as such we should only include material that passes a certain admittedly hard-to-determine bar. For instance, yes, Kirk did say that thing about nuttiness on college campuses. But what does it even mean, and what does it have to do with Turning Point USA? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

One of the most notable things about Turning Point USA is the amount of money it's raised. (Politico calls it "cash rich".) In the quote I added (the middle bullet point above "As chief fundraiser for the organization ...") its head fundraiser simply, concisely, in colloquial terms, explains its successful fundraising strategy. How can that not be noteworthy????? --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Campus Victory Project

Ccallana, I like the source you added, but I don't know if we should be including an exhaustive list of every targeted school, and even if we do, we can't put add such a large table that swamps the rest of the article. I'd like to get other editors' thoughts on how to handle this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to recreate Charlie Kirk spinout article

I think Charlie Kirk has gained enough notability outside of his organization that his own article is due. As someone mentioned above below, he has been profiled in multiple reliable sources: "Bloomberg[12], Atlantic[13] and more." What were the arguments against doing this?--The lorax (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion is above below, called "Merge proposal" --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the article of Kirk was merged into this one, with consensus. Sure, consensus can change, but this is too soon. Plus there's no sign that the Kirk portion of the article is in danger of overwhelming the rest of it, and Kirk really has no notability whatever except for his connection with Turning Point. There's no need to spin it off into a new article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, would you mind re-posting in the "Merge proposal" section above below to avoid having these discussions run in parallel? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs) 23:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Merge proposal

January 2018

I'm proposing that the article Charlie Kirk (activist) be merged / redirected into this article. Kirk is only notable as part of the group; there's no need to maintain two stand-alone articles. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

::I second this purposal. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 07:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Decided to be bold and redirect Charlie Kirk to Turning Point USA after 10 days and 2 people voting yes. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the bold move, but the consensus is to merge Charlie Kirk, not to BLAR it. This means you have to copy the content, not just blank it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

:::::I applogize Dr. Fleischman. I fixed it. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

I've re-created the Kirk page and cleaned it up. In my estimation, he clearly fulfills Wikipedia's standards for notability. If you disagree and believes he fails notability, feel free to start an afd. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

No, we have consensus and you are editing against it. Start an RfC if you wish. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

::You can't determine on the page that is not the subject that it cannot have its own standalone page. If you believe Kirk does not merit a page you can start a formal afd. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:, do you mind assisting here? [14] Thanks. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

This is the way to handle a disputed merger. Not an AfD or an RfC. Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. Doug Weller talk 20:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

:::::@Doug Weller:, so would it be correct to say the Kirk article should stand now and if users think it should be merged, they should run a formal merge request through Wikipedia:Proposed mergers? If that is the case, should Dr. Fleischman revert himself here[15]? If I am mistaken in regards to the process, please let me know. Many thanks. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Everything is spelled out at WP:MERGE. WP:Proposed mergers is optional. And it isn't officially a forum for resolving merge disputes that arise on article talk pages, though I wouldn't be surprised if it's sometimes used for that anyway. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, WP:MERGE says "Controversial mergers: Most merger proposals are handled directly by the editors involved in those articles. But if you believe that your proposal will be controversial, then please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers to request extra attention from uninvolved editors. So of course it can be worked out on the talk page, but this is the suggested way to handle controversial mergers, which I interpret as being ones that can't be worked out on a talk page. I usually suggest it when there's a dispute. Doug Weller talk 21:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

:::::::@DrFleischman:, would you consider reverting yourself then for the time being? [16] These two articles are by no means an "obvious" merge. Actually, I don't see it fulfilling any of the four stated reasons for WP:MERGEREASON. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Well I think the merge can certainly be justified under reasons 1, 2, and 3, but this isn't "my" merge, rather it was more the merge of K.e.coffman (who proposed it) and Jamesharrison2014 (who implemented it). It would be helpful to get their reaction. And FWIW I don't think this counts as a dispute that wasn't worked out on the talk page. It was worked out on the talk page and consensus was readily obtained. Then a editor came in later and disagreed with the existing consensus. That's a perfect setup for an RfC. But that's a minor procedural quibble; if Plot Spoiler wants to take this to WP:Proposed mergers then I don't particularly care. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: WP:Proposed mergers isn't for de-merging merged articles, unless I'm mistaken. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

:::::::I agree with Dr. Fleischman it is justified under 1, 2, and 3. We gained consensus and there was not push back or vote against it. I came in after 10 days of no commenting and merged the pages. Kirk is not independently notable. He is notable for his organization. There is a policy if you want to revert it but you can't just decide to do it. You must file and RfC and then it could possibly be amended. As it stands there was no aditional comments and after 10 days the consensus was to merge. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment -- since it was my proposal, I obviously support the merge. The subject is only notable in association with the group, so it makes sense to cover him here, as it typically done for minor groups like this. If Kirk goes on to something else notable, he may warrant a stand-alone article. WP:TOOSOON at this point. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

*Comment Agreed. Even his book is titled Time for a Turning Point. All anyone know him by is Turning Point. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment No, proposed mergers is only a way of dealing with possibly contested mergers. The problem withh doing it the way it's beenn done here is that editors at the other article who aren't active here haven't been notified and given the possibility of joining in the discussion. If they object there could be problems. Doug Weller talk 07:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

::@Doug Weller: I have to respectfully disagree. I checked to make sure that a tag was placed on the page notifying them of the discussion. See here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charlie_Kirk_(activist)&oldid=821843382 at the top of the page. Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. (talk) 11:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC) :::@Doug Weller: So what's the next step? Would it be appropriate for you to revert Fleischman here [17] and then they can start a formal proposed merger if they'd like? Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

No. But it would be appropriate/courteous to notify some of the editors of the merged article. I'm not sure which. Of course you could argue that if it's on their watchlist they will have noticed and silence give consent. I'm not sure I like that argument though. I'm taking no action here. Doug Weller talk 17:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

:::::@Doug Weller: They're clearly just going to edit war and revert me if I re-create the page. What should I do? Do these three editors have the de facto ability to deny the existence of a page? Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:DRN? Note that two of the editors are good experienced editors. And I really don't see the problem. There's a redirect so anyone looking for him will come here. If there's more later on that isn't really about Turning Point and his section gets large, that would be a reasonable time to demerge. Doug Weller talk 17:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I've re-created the Charlie Kirk page. I respectfully ask the editors here not to edit war and continue to revert and instead launch a formal proposed merger in which more than three people can participate. Three people does not a consensus make. Many thanks. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned on your user talk, if you don't self-revert this is going to end up at WP:AE, not at WP:PM. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

::@Doug Weller: Is it not eminently reasonable for the other editors here to do a proposed merger which involves the feedback of more than three people? We are are speaking of an individual who has had personal profiles in Bloomberg[18], Atlantic[19] and more. Written a book published by Simon & Schuster, one of the leading publishing houses in the world[20]. Advised a presidential campaign on attracting the millennial vote[21][22] and been publicly praised by the president[23]. This seems to be a very clear subject of interest for a Wikipedia page. At least there should be a fair hearing here in which evidence and Wikipedia policy is brought to bear, which minimally occurred in the merge discussion above. It does not seem reasonable, nor backed by policy, for three editors to have a veto on the existence of a page without going through the proper channels. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It's a content dispute. You are only going to get into trouble if you edit war. I've already suggested DRN. Doug Weller talk 19:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

Two editors are edit warring against the above consensus. They've provided no justification, so at this point I see no reason to consider departing from in. Pinging prior contributors to see where they stand. K.e.coffman Jamesharrison2014 Plot Spoiler Doug Weller --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Also pinging the edit warriors. The lorax Lionelt --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you call a bunch of banned sockpuppets talking to each other consensus? Even Doug Weller said this whole scheme to evade WP:Proposed mergers was fishy. – Lionel^(talk) 09:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Your statement is false. Here's my justification "This article fails WP:MERGEREASON. Consensus has changed WP:CCC. To merge this you have to go to WP:RM". – Lionel^(talk) 09:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

That's not a content-based argument. We have no idea why you think restoring Charlie Kirk is superior. Not to the material is currently in duplicate because you only unmerged halfway. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Jamesharrison2014 and Plot Spoiler will not be responding. Jamesharrison2014 has been indefinitely blocked for socking, personal attacks and edit warring. Plot Spoiler has been indefinitely blocked for undisclosed paid editing. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

I'm notable! Give me my own page!

I came late to this party; not my fault, I am NPR/NYTimes dependent and only heard about him today on This American Life. So I googled him and Turning Point, and it seems clear to me that his activities have enough SIGCOV to support an article and that Turning Point USA, with a $5 million budget and burgeoning membership, is big enough that it is time to have two articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. He has no notability separate from the organization. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

No, @E.M.Gregory:, you're right on time! And I agree with your informed and concise reasoning for re-creating the article. I find your points extremely persuasive. Did you know that we already have a fully referenced standalone version of Charlie Kirk which passes WP:SUMMARY with flying colors?? It has 14 reliable sources! And 2 photos! And with a couple new sources we can make the new Charlie Kirk article merge-proof!!!! The old version is -->here<--.– Lionel^(talk) 10:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Don't be confused, E.M. Gregory: if I said the Pope was Catholic, Lionelt would swear up and down that he was Episcopalian. He's just pissed off, because he was shot down at ANI when he reported me. I wouldn't put any weight on his opinion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I suggest you revert that outrageous attack. – Lionel^(talk) 02:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

No thanks. I have the diffs to show that you're following me around, so I'm good. A few more and I'll be filing a WP:Harassment report. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: Kirk is not independently notable; everything that's worth mentioning about him can be done in the context of this article, and two separate articles are not needed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• That's really the point here - he's done nothing notable whatsoever outside of the context of TP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 7:33 pm, Today (UTC−7)

September 2018

I'm apparently coming to this discussion very late as well. I don't really have a dog in this hunt, but wanted to make a point. Candace Owens is not well known for anything beyond her work with Turning Point USA, yet she has her own article. Laura Loomer is not working for anyone anymore (that I know of, and she has her own article. Charlie Kirk has been on numerous other channels giving interviews and there are tons of references now for him and his views. My vote, if it means anything at all, is another in the column of support a stand-alone article for Charlie Kirk. By my count, that is several votes supporting and only a couple of votes not supporting. Not a concensus, but more leaning to have a separate article. More correctly, considering the heading of this section, I Oppose merging the Kirk article with the Turning Point article. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 17:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Wasn't Owens notable before joining TP (e.g. she was lauded by Kanye before joining TP)? Unlike Kirk whose sole claim to notoriety is tied to this organization? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: According to the article, she joined TPUSA in 2017 and was "lauded by Kanye" in the spring of 2018. That aside, she honestly did not become anything noteworthy until after joining TPUSA. Should her article also be merged into this one? No, not likely... — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 19:17, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Per her Wiki article, she became prominent in 2017 and only joined TPUSA in late November 2017. But you're right on the Kanye thing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

How do we resolve this with finality? The guy is NOT the organization. I just for the first time visited their page, and there are very many people behind the organization now. Charlie Kirk is a well known figure now. Isn't it about time to give this guy his own page? — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 20:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I just placed an RfC on the page Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard asking for advice and help on how to get this issue resolved. Hopefully, someone there can help us. I asked that they make their comments here on this talk page. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 14:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Struck edits by a sockmaster (Plot Spoiler) and an unrelated sock (Jamesharrison). Doug Weller talk 18:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose recreation Kirk's notoriety is tied to his participation in this organization, he's not independently notable. While I hear TadgStirkland401 I'd point out that WP:OSE is not grounds for article creation. Simonm223 (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support recreation @Simonm223: What would it take for Kirk to be as notable and worthy as say Candace Owens or Laura Loomer? I'm only using those names because they are from the same general generation and leaning of activists. I'm honestly curious as to what it takes to be notable enough to warrant an indespendent article, especially considering one of his employees gets one but he doesn't. Is it just because she's prettier? It's curious to me at this point. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 17:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

That's what I meant when I pointed out that WP:OSE doesn't provide grounds for article creation. Simonm223 (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

"Racism allegations" renamed to "Instances of racism"

I'd like to suggest to rename the section titled "Racism allegations" to "Instances of racism". This is because the section mentions actual instances of racism, not only "allegations". BeŻet (talk) 09:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

"third party sources"

Beyond My Ken, yes, and third-party sources, including the one cited for the very sentence ([24]) use conservative, as I mentioned in my edit summary ("and most used in sources."). The New Yorker also uses conservative, and while I'm able to find a couple of sources that use right-wing, the vast majority that I see use "conservative". Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC) (this is regarding [25] for anyone else)

Proper Use of Primary and Secondary Sources

To everyone who isn't familiar with properly citing information from primary sources, take a moment to read through and understand Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources. Secondary sources that incorrectly quote information from a primary source, such as news articles incorrectly quoting TPUSA's mission statement from their own website, must be replaced immediately. A primary source should be used in its stead. Make sure that you are sourcing ALL your information correctly and make sure that your edits accurately reflect the contents of your sources. Anyone continuously misconstruing information in bad faith will be reported to the notice boards.

Beyond My Ken please take a moment to familiarize yourself with proper use of primary sources. Thank you for all your edits.

--Mwright1469 (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)