Talk:Turning Point USA

Splitting proposal (Tyler Bowyer)

I am proposing (After advocating for a long time that the Bowyer section be trimmed to keeping only content relevant to TPUSA) that Tyler Bowyer get a split out from this article. We can keep relevant well sourced content, such as when he was COO of TPUSA under the leadership section) however there is much material under his section that simply is irrelevant/out of scope to TPUSA and with lots of editors expressing that he is notable enough for inclusion we should give him his own article at this point, he has enough sourced material to sustain a lone article. Some content not relevant to this article was added due to this being the "Closest alternative" which isn't adequate enough for inclusion when we can simply create an article where no "alternative" is necessary. @DividedFrame, Llll5032, and AstralNomad: (I don't know how to ping the IP editor) MaximusEditor (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Via OffTopic policy page-

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

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

For an example of reference:

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

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

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

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

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

Support. l agree with splitting Tyler Bowyer from the page and putting all notable activity he has done on his own page rather than Turning Point USA's, provided the actions performed are not representative of the company.

I don't understand why exactly an employee should have such a substantial amount of content on his employer's page that includes actions he performed outside his duties with that employer. Along those same lines, just because a reliable source describes Bowyer as an employee of Turning Point USA in an article about his actions (the fake electors indictment, for example) does not mean that Turning Point USA is involved with those actions. Rather, it is the news outlet providing more background. I agree with the metaphor MaximusEditor used and the fact that the inclusion of events on the page of an organization that was not directly involved is just unethical editing and a dishonest service to any reader who clicks on the page.

Splitting Bowyer from the page can also help clear some obvious confusion with Turning Point USA and Turning Point Action. Even several WP:RS that have been cited in the past on this page appear to have issued corrections as they themselves have failed to make this distinction in their coverage. From sources that have been provided by some editors in the past, along with additional research, it is evident that these two organizations are separate entities, but share obvious similarities in both their names and the fact that Charlie Kirk founded both of them. Nonetheless, this distinction needs to be more clear, as it would be unfair to Turning Point USA to attribute actions to them on their Wikipedia page that they did not perform.

Bowyer appears to be a prominent voice in conservative politics both at a state and national level, and could be described as notable enough to warrant his own page under WP:SIGCOV in the WP:GNG.

Bowyer's previous tenure with Turning Point USA and what titles he held should stay on the leadership page, although with an accurate timeline. Any other actions by Bowyer, both the fake elector scandal and all future actions that he does in his own time, should definitely not be on the Turning Point USA page. This does not seem to be an appropriate practice for organization's pages on Wikipedia, and I don't see any other pages that do this. AstralNomad (talk) 01:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note - After reverting this edit, (Removing more non-TPUSA related content regarding Tyler Bowyer's involvement in the fake elector scandal.) It is blatantly obvious that this is just becoming the place where editors are dumping any/all information regarding Tyler Bower. (One of the cited articles didn't even mention Bowyer, and the reliable NBC article cited did not mention TPUSA in the article, *It did mention TPAction). At this moment the discussion to move all non-related content over to a newly created Tyler Bowyer article is ongoing, but in the meantime I will be moving strictly the information regarding the indictment over to the actual Wikipedia page dedicated to the investigation/court case as that is the most accurate and efficient place to put it and as stated in the discussion above TPUSA has no involvement with the scandal. MaximusEditor (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  I restored a short version of the content you removed, to note for the sake of fairness that Bowyer pleaded not guilty. NBC's naming of Turning Point Action (often described as TPUSA's campaign arm), in addition to the other current sources' description of Boyer as an executive of Turning Point USA, should be sufficient for due weight and relevance for this use. Llll5032 (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  Llll5032, prior consensus on this talk page is that TPAction and TPUSA are separate entities and the only way you can include TPAction content on this article is if there is specific language used in the cited sources that TPUSA was involved in the outlined content as well. That is why the TPAction article was split out to begin with. Posting a quote from a single editor who opposed the split on the TPAction talk page does not make the fact it was split out untrue. It was talked about and it was split out because consensus was reached they are not to be treated as one entity. Blending the two organizations is righting great wrongs, its not factual and it is not true. Ignoring that consensus is a form of Stone walling. Please stop reverting removed content that does not contain that specific language.

  Via WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS policy page-

  " Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. So, if you want to:

  Explain what you are sure is the truth of a current or historical, political, religious, or moral issue on Wikipedia, you'll have to wait until it's been reported by reliable sources or published in books from reputable publishing houses. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. Wikipedia doesn't lead; we follow. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. Finding neutral ways of presenting them is what we do. "

  We have discussed that if the WP:BESTSOURCES are calling TPAction "TPUSA's campaign arm" then you are welcome to put that exact phrase into this article, but you still have lacked supplying this talk page with any RS stating they are factually more than just shared branding. Please do share any articles if you have found anything otherwise, I have requested that from you many times. If you can provide RS stating such, it would establish verifiability, but until then it is OR. MaximusEditor (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  I added a RS that names TPUSA directly, in hopes of resolving that issue to your satisfaction. Llll5032 (talk) 03:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  This is just another article that states that Bowyer worked for TPUSA. I am asking you to explain how you justify an article saying-

  "Tyler Bowyer, Turning Point USA internet personality" as implicating TPUSA to a legal court case? I'm serious, please explain.

  I asked you to provide RS that implicates TPUSA with the Arizona fake elector hearing. You can't provide anything, you keep giving us random articles with zero relevance. We already have RS stating his tenure as COO of TPUSA. This article is just redundant in verifying the fact that Tyler once worked for TPUSA. No, this does not meet any aspect that policy states is necessary for that content to meet inclusion criteria. It is still WP:OFFTOPIC and is much better served in the articles I mentioned above. @Llll5032. Please remove the article you cited, it serves no purpose. MaximusEditor (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  If you are concerned that mentioning the indictment of Bowyer, its COO, unjustly implicates TPUSA as a group, then perhaps some brief and reliably sourced explanation could be added to clarify in what capacity Bowyer was charged. Also, you may be overly personalizing this disagreement; note that several other editors also contributed to the content you are disputing, and some discussed the matter in the preceding Tyler Bowyer section in talk. I removed another editor's source that named Turning Point Action instead of TPUSA to further address your OR concern. Llll5032 (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  It is a WP:NEWSBLOG, but this article discusses how the indictment could affect TPUSA. There may be better sources citable. Llll5032 (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  MaximusEditor, because two more editors have contributed to the content (@Soibangla and Speakfor23), in addition to two IPs and the editors you pinged, it is likely that a majority of editors would oppose removing. Perhaps other editors who contributed will discuss. Llll5032 (talk) 03:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  I was hoping DividedFrame would come discuss, as his edit summary reasoning for dumping unrelated content was that there was simply no where better to put it. As you can see I have tried to remedy that reasoning with creating a Tyler Bowyer article creation process. Only you have rejected that proposal so far. I have also tried to remedy the issue of unrelated material by listing several policies (Such as WP:OFFTOPIC) that accurately define/outline the use-case of the information regarding the indictment of Tyler Bowyer through his activity and time being a committeman at the RNC, and supplied two articles to relocate the information that actually have relevancy. Those two articles are the RNC wiki article and the Arizona prosecution of fake electors article. Unless those new invited editors can provide RS that indicate TPUSA was somehow involved in this fake electors scandal, then it remains as it is, TPUSA has zero involvement. The RNC does. I don't see how editors weighing in without stating any kind of policy can produce any more consensus for inclusion per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS. Consensus is rooted in policy and the participation of trying to reach a compromise. What defense for inclusion of non-related material do you have that is rooted in any Wikipedia policy? MaximusEditor (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  Llll5032 Just because two editors and two IPs contributed to this page in some capacity does not mean they agree with you in your stance on splitting. Saying they "likely" agree with you when they have not engaged in this conversation on the talk page, even after you tagged them, is not sufficient. We need explicit contributions of either supporting or opposing to determine course of action, as WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS states.

  You are the only editor who has opposed in this split proposal section despite the current majority agreeing that the content on this page about Bowyer are WP:OFFTOPIC and should be put in a more appropriate place, which arguably would be a dedicated page for Bowyer. Other editors have been free to provide input but have not. As of right now, while I am WP:AGF, your comments appear to be WP:STONEWALLING.

  The amount of controversy on this talk page and the edits that have occurred make it very obvious that Bowyer needs to be split to adequately cover the events that have transpired. No one is disagreeing with the validity of the content being added about Bowyer's actions, and no one on this talk page has argued to remove it entirely from Wikipedia. Rather, it appears obvious that it is not appropriate for an employee's actions to be on the page of his employer when that company was not directly involved. This is the page for TPUSA and should only have things on it relating to the organization, its actions, its rhetoric, etc. Plus, Wikipedia already has a page regarding the Trump fake electors plot and the Arizona prosecution of fake electors.

  Again, I'm going to WP:AGF, but the aggressive desire to keep this content on TPUSA's page despite no WP:RS saying TPUSA played a direct role in these scandals seems personally motivated and has not been supported by any Wikipedia policy.

  As of now, this split should go forward and you should be willing to let that happen unless you or other editors can provide more concrete examples of Wikipedia policy that contradict that consensus. if consensus ends up changing, and it is determined that Bowyer should not be split due to arguments regarding WP:GNG, any content on this page regarding Bowyer that does not directly involve TPUSA still needs to be removed and put on a page more appropriate. Again, this is the page for TPUSA and we have obviously wandered completely WP:OFFTOPIC. AstralNomad (talk) 07:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  Although 6 editors (4 registered editors including me, and 2 IPs) added content since April 25 that you and MaximusEditor are disputing, I agree that article contributions and statements in the Tyler Bowyer discussion above do not count for a "vote" in this section. Perhaps more editors will comment in this section. Llll5032 (talk) 04:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  Llll5032, the editors that added the content did not come to discuss the topic of inclusion even when pinged because they can not counter the logic/policy outlined here on the talk page or simply did not care. The information about Tyler Bowyer and the indictment/fake electors does not belong on this page. There are zero sources linking TPUSA to anything Bowyer did regarding election activity. Any argument for inclusion is weak. According to WP:ONUS:

  "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

  It is clear from this discussion that ONUS is not met for inclusion. It needs to be removed/moved to maybe a better more suitable article which the other editors have outlined. Eruditess (talk) 06:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

References

I've asked the editor who made the latest revert to self-revert

See above: "Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page". Doug Weller talk 08:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I looked over my prior reversion and I think I must have misread something originally. I no longer have any objection to restoring the edit in question. Simonm223 (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)