Talk:Turning Point USA/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Article needs a little bit of formatting clean up

So there are some inconsistencies throughout this article as far as formatting goes: Why are the "involvement" (aka "involvement in student government" and "involvement in 2016/2020 elections") sections not sub-sections of the controversies section? a) The sections are all negative which makes the title of "involvement with 2016/2020 elections" misleading, a more accurate label would be "controversy with student government" & "controversies with 2016/2020 elections", and with that more appropriate label of controversy this honestly should be moved into the controversy section. Its an encyclopedia so formatting is important, some sort of agenda to push negative sections to the top shouldn't be the main focus of this article, albeit one can't help but feel that way when reading through it.Eruditess (talk) 02:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

After taking a look at the "2020 presedential election" section the statement made within is about how Charlie Kirk formed Turning Point Action a 501(c)(4) organization. Turning Point Action is a totally different entity than Turning Point USA a 501(c)(3), different rules apply to them. Turning Point Action should have a separate page if what is in the section is that notable, how does one go ahead an nominate that to take place? EliteArcher88 (talk) 11:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
So after having this sit in the talk page with no response for over a week, I went ahead and made the needed changes, user @Beyond My Ken: reverted it with no edit summary, which really calls motive into question, as Wikipedia guideline WP:FIES really urges you to leave an edit summary when reverting. Its an Encyclopedia and undoing a formatting change to have certain controversies up higher on the page than others is odd? I'm pinging user:Beyond my Ken to maybe clarify why he did this.Eruditess (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
No edit summary = "better before" or "Not an improvement". What else could it mean? No response on the talk page =/= consensus. Usually it means something like "Not important enough to waste time on". Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
BTW, WP:AGF, don't impugn negative motives to other editors, especially when you've been here 9 months and have 111 edits, and the other editor has been here 15 years and has over 250,000 edits. A better assumption would be that the other editor has a clearer idea of how to edit Wikipedia, at least until it's proven otherwise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
First @Beyond My Ken:, having 15 years and over 250,00 edits is very admirable and notable.
I could have worded it clearer, impugning another user was not the message I wanted to relay, apologies for that. I understand to take others users contributions with good faith, but do understand that a revert without explanation is confounding. But in response to your undoing of my Turning Point USA edit, I offer the following comments to clarify my original stance:
Wikipedia:Edit Warring policy WP:EW states that “When reverting, be sure to indicate your reasons.”
Wikipedia:Reverting policy WP:REVEXP states that “Edit summaries, always a good practice, are particularly important when reverting. Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion.”
It boils down to this, my edit tried to clean up the articles format. Reverting my edit stating: “it’s obvious it was better before the edit”, is problematic because it maintains that certain controversies remain closer to the top of the article rather than where they belong, which seems to serve a purpose to make them more prominent. I understand what counts as better format flow is a “prerogative”. But format by definition is “the way in which something is arranged or set out.” To have unorganized sections wouldn’t really be an organized arranged format, it’s just sloppy. Of course, that is just my prerogative. And if we are worried about WP:Weight, I’ll just redo my edit and literally raise the “controversies” section header up two paragraph blocks. Which won’t change the weight at all, it will just change the organization of the formatting.Eruditess (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


Here is what WP:CRITS has to say about how to approach criticism in articles: 

"Controversy Section"-"In this approach,the article contains a section which focuses only on negative criticisms. This approach is sometimes used for politics, religion and philosophy topics. Great care should be taken that the section is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of complaints."

-I agree that to maintain this guideline, put the :"involvement in student government" , "involvement in 2016 election" and "2020 election" sections ALL under controversies, and if we have an issue with WP:DUE, just slightly adjust where the header is, by moving it up above the aforementioned three sections, and technically the article remains virtually the same (except with better organization), so no actual change to WP:WEIGHT would occur. I don't agree that it was better before your original edit User:Eruditess, keeping it the way it is as of now would be in direct conflict with WP:CRITS, I'd make the change and redo your original edit. EliteArcher88 (talk) 06:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes please make those changes Eruditess! This article is a mess and needs some structure/orginization! --MaximusEditor (talk) 10:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Eruditees: This subject is a controversial one, and history has shown us that "cleaning up" controversial articles can often lead to whitewashing them. I'm not at all implying that this is the underlying purpose in this instance, but I think given the circumstances, it would be best to outline your planned changes here on the talk page before you make them. Then, after they have been discussed and approved, to make the changes in small doses, to avoid the necessity of a mass revert. None of this is necessarily required, of course, but by not doing so you set yourself up for all your changes to be reverted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
So @Beyond My Ken:, I understand your point about white washing, to clarify my context with using the phase, "cleaning up" would be in a sense a formatting one that will not change any of the contents wording at all, therefore no chance of whitewashing. I googled Wikipedias definition of whitewashing to be sure no such incident would occur, definition is as follows:
"to gloss over or cover up vices, crimes or scandals or to exonerate by means of a perfunctory investigation or through biased presentation of data"
-Since I'm not changing any of the wording , I'm not presenting any different data then whats already here, I'm just organizing it, which I think is a positive thing, I dont think anybody would argue to keep it less organized. To Outline my changes is quite simple, I move the "Controversies" Header up 3 sections to include the "involvement in student government", "involvement in 2016 election" & "2020 election" sections. In doing this the WP:WEIGHT would remain the same. To sum it up I'm not whitewashing it and I'm not changing the WP:WEIGHT, I'm further organizing it per WP:CRITS "approach to handle controversy sections" what more needs to be discussed?Eruditess (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, it's simple, but I wouldn't do it, because "controversy" sections attract unwanted attention, and by putting the student gov section in there and moving it up, you make it easier for someone to come along and delete the entire section. In any case, there's no real "controversy" involved with their actions in student government, they're quite well documented. Id leave well enough alone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I do agree with the changes that need to be met as per WP:CRITS outlined approach on how to handle the controversy section, and to follow @Beyond My Ken:'s advice and break it down into smaller sub-edits as to not make one massive edit. I will go ahead and handle the 2020 election section. After further investigation, Turning Point Action 501(c)(4) is an entirely separate entity from Turning Point USA 501(c)(3). I can see how it may be confusing to the untrained eye, as both organizations have the common "Turning Point" theme in their title, but the two are different types of organizations which have different rules applied to them. So it's appropriate and irrelevant to be part of the Turning Point USA article. I am going to make an edit following this post to remove it.EliteArcher88 (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
If your large edit is an example of what you mean by "clean up", then there are going to be problems. You removed sourced information on bogus grouds - I call that "whitewashing" and not "clean up". Please don;t do this again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken:, These are literally two separate organizations established with the US Government; a 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) and they must act independently by their charter. Claiming in your revert summary that they are the “same org” is just plain wrong. It doesn’t matter if the edit was sourced, properly weighted, a neutral Point of View, correctly formatted or have “Turning Point” in their name - the 2020 Presidential Election section has nothing in it that relates to TPUSA and therefore does not belong on the TPUSA page. This was thoroughly discussed on the Talk page and having this edit reverted, just because it is a sourced citation, is erroneous. This is not an opinion, this is being factual – so it really is not a topic for debate, you do not have consensus, so please undo your revert and improve the accuracy of the article.EliteArcher88 (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
They may be legally seprarte organizations, but they are not in any actual real-world way independent of each other, because they're run by exactly the same people, and have precisely the same organizational goals. They are two parts of the same beast, and eliminating what one part does because of a fig leaf that they're "separate organizations" is whitewashing, pure and simple. Don't do it again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken:, Whitewashing? No way. I can “maybe” see an argument for putting the first line of 2020 Presidential Election under the Formation and activities section to recognize a very minor amount of commonality. But the second, third, fourth and fifth lines focus on John Lambert and his prison sentence. What does talking about John Lambert and him going to prison have to do with TPUSA? John Lambert was convicted; Students for Trump was not on trial and TP Action has absolutely no association with John Lambert. And TPUSA is one step further removed from TP Action. Bottom line, it’s not notable to mention Lambert, a man who had been separated from Students for Trump by a margin of 3 years before it was acquired by TP Action. This section needs to be deleted.EliteArcher88 (talk) 01:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, your arguments are vapid. They are essentially the same organization, and I do not think you are a NPOV editor with respect to this article. I suggest you do not edit it any more. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
After reading through this post, I find EliteArcher88’s comments are NOT vapid; quite the opposite, they are actually direct, authentic, factual, genuine and truthful - but I find BeyondMyKen’s response to be lacking in any sort of reason, facts, or logic. The 2020 Presidential election section does not belong on the TPUSA and needs to be removed; BeyondMyKen please undo EliteArcher88’s edit.MaximusEditor (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Since the two organization share names and personnel, theyt are the same, and your opinion is obvious PoV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I also agree with EliteArcher88's edit, as I started this discussion with the intention to clean up the article, this being a good first step, I also believe I'm in the majority consensus to move the remaining 2 sections into Controversies, and I'll do that as BMK suggested one singular section at a time so that there wont be a mass revert. I don't see how that would be violating or whitewashing because it doesn't change WP:WEIGHT at all and wouldn't be changing any of the wording, as the definition of "whitewashing" is: deliberately attempt to conceal unpleasant facts about (a person or organization), changing a header isn't concealing anything, would just be moving the header to a more accurate position, which is what WP:CRITS directs us to do when approaching a controversy section. BeyondMyKen, I also will have to ask you please undo your revert of EliteArcher88's edit, having Lambert convicted 3 years after a company has its assets bought is more notable to the Students for Trump article (since he was a co-founder to that company, not Turning Point Action), its not really relevant here, as far as it being a PoV problem, having it in this article is misleading and could give somebody the impression Lambert worked for Turning Point USA and that would be wrong, factually wrong.Eruditess (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • There will be no revert. Stripping information about the 501(c)(4) organization "Turning Point Action: created by Kirk and under his control iws whitewashing this article, pure and simple, and that will not be allowed, no matter how many Turning Point advocates show up and ask for it. I will take it where ever is necessary if other editors start removing this material. We are not a promotional outlet for Turning Point or its allies, and we will not be used as such. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Lets review, all statements made were pulled from the 2020 election section source:
1) Lambert parted ways with "Students for Trump" around 2016. -Fact stated in the section.
2) Students for Trumps assets were bought by Turning Point Action a newly formed 501(c)(4) in 2019- Fact stated in the section.
3)Lambert confessed to crimes he committed in 2019-(3 years after he parted ways with Students for Trump) -Fact stated in the section.
These are all facts, these are all things directly stated in the section. So how am I not NPOV? Seriously how can one not be NPOV if all I did was reference facts from the section to deduce that it has zero relevancy?I'm sorry your argument doesnt hold up. How are these statements vapid? The time of Lamberts conviction is 3 years after employment at Students for Trump, which at the time Turning Point Action wasn't even formed yet. This is notable? How? The section is trying to make a correlation between a man who committed crimes and Turning Point USA, but there isn't one? There is no correlation. Please do not ignore facts, please do not ignore consensus. This isn't a promotional outlet, its Wikipedia, where consensus matters, facts matter. EliteArcher88 (talk) 09:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:False consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Again, a vapid argument, and illogical at that. What you did was remove information about Kirk's political action committee because it's not Kirk's parent organization. Ain't gonna happen. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Lead edit 28 June

@Beyond My Ken: your undo of Atsme's edit to the last has an invalid justification. [[1]]. Contrary to your edit justification, this material is not part of any current discussion. Per lead follows body why is this material in the lead. Also, Atsme's concerns may also be a legitimate reason for removal. I'm assuming this text is part of a stable version of the lead unless down otherwise. Springee (talk) 09:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

See WP:ONUS - the material was challenged for valid reasons, see my edit summary for removing and reverting. The material that was restored is noncompliant with WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:REDFLAG. Atsme Talk 📧 12:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I see lots of wikilinks but not much by way of how they apply. REDFLAG is about claims that we need to make sure have good sourcing. The sources here are the Chronicle of Education (there are two articles they published which apply), the New Yorker, Politico, and the quickest of google searches returns another in Pacific Standard. So the quality of sources doesn't seem in question. So what's the issue? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
There is no consensus for that edit, and no proper justification. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Patience is wearing thin on this one... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, mine - specifically the BLP vios and the ages of the accused. Atsme Talk 📧 15:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I see two issues with the content. First, where does the body of the article support this specific accusation? Second, of the two supporting citations, the NPR one does not support the article text. The other is behind a pay wall. If we can’t find a second source to back up the claim then it’s not due for the lead. If the same editor added both citations then I think the material behind the paywall needs to be quoted here. I say this because the second citation doesn’t support the claim so I have no faith the first will. Springee (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
As I said above (this time with links): Chronicle, a second piece in the Chronicle, Pacific Standard, New Yorker, Politico ... not to mention university publications like the Daily Kansan and the KState Collegian... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
You can add 600 sources and it doesn't change anything. That doesn't determine anything but notability, not whether it does or doesn't belong in the lead. I agree with Springee, and will add that nothing that TPUSA done has been proven illegal, unethical or in violation of it's status as a 501(c)(3). Their political opposition would like to think so, but IRS restrictions on such contributions to nonprofits apply only to people running for public office. Student government reps are not public officials, so why shouldn't they have a strategy and operate out of the limelight? If legal definitions change regarding student government, and TPUSA is found to be in violation, then it may become worthy of inclusion in the lead. I also oppose the wording "combat liberalism" which is not included in any of the cited material. The Politico article is well-balanced and properly covers criticism of the organization as well as activities. It needs to be removed, or reworded to comply with NPOV to avoid making it appear as a BLP vio. Atsme Talk 📧 17:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Atsme, it is not clear what specific text you are claiming violates policy. [2] is the text in question, yes? "The organization has also secretly attempted to influence student government elections in an effort to "combat liberalism on college and university campuses." That doesn't invoke BLP at all. We're not saying they violated their charter. There is no accusation against anybody. What, precisely, is the problem with that text? Guy (help!) 18:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
As I've said in another thread above, the lead does an inadequate job of summarizing the rest of the article. The answer isn't to selectively remove content, but to add to it. The only reason it seems undue is because the lead is lacking. If you'd like to propose an alternative wording, that gives us something to talk about. Solutions, not problems and whatnot. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I’m going to have limited web access over the next week but I suspect we can come up with a better sentence with some dialog. I think a better summary might be possible and the "secret" part is too conspiratorial. We need phrasing that is impartial. Springee (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Replying to JzG - NPOV, UNDUE, the statement is in WikiVoice, and it stems from an allegation in a single source that was repeated by other sources citing the original. The article in the paywalled source (The Chronical of Higher Education) dates back to 2017 under the title: Inside a Stealth Plan for Political Influence: To fight campus liberalism, a right-wing group is funneling thousands of dollars to student-government campaigns. The first paragraph of WP:BLP explains why it is noncompliant with BLP. Atsme Talk 📧 18:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
To Atsme - you are mistaken. It is not an allegation, it is a fact. And, actually, the original source is a 2015 youtube video (starting at timestamp 18:18)[3] of Charlie Kirk discussing TPUSA's secret "undercover, underground operation" funnel thousands of TPUSA dollars into student government association elections to get student candidates elected to "control tens of millions of dollars in student funding" and to "censor professors." Several RS have reported on it: New York Times, [4] Chicago Tribune, [5] Politico, Politico and more. Also, several college newspapers have also reported on it. So it appears including it will not violate REDFLAG, UNDUE, NPOV & not BLP either. Below, in green, is a partial transcript of Kirk discussing TPUSA's secret "undercover, underground operation" from the youtube video starting at timestamp 18:18.
KIRK: "We’re starting a rather undercover, underground operation that is designed for one purpose only, and that is to run and win Student Government Association races the same way we look at Congressional campaigns. If we can successfully retake the student governments on these really, really far-left campuses such as UC-Irvine, UCLA, and we run the student government association races with the same money, time, energy and resources we do a Congressional campaign, then we can start to see, I would say, an effective, neutralizing factor on these campuses. You can control student funding, you can censor professors, you can get rid of free-speech zones, you can then balance the curriculum, you then can use your student government post as a bully pulpit.  We've done it successfully in many other colleges. So this has never been done on a broad scale to try to retake student government associations using our members, our activists, but with a full campaign team and arm where they wake up every single day, just as if you're running a congressional or mayoral race or senate race trying to develop messaging with flyers, banners, twitter profiles to try to get that student government association person elected. And it might seem like kind of a silly thing to try to takeover student government associations but they control tens of millions of dollars in student funding ... and we're investing a lot of time and energy and money in it. You would be amazed so if you spent $5000 on a race you can win it.  I mean, you could retake a whole college university.  And we did it at Arizona State University. So we're scaling it and so in colleges like in California, that's really where our money, time, energy, and resources are going because five people running on a slate at UC Irvine can affect 55,000 and the fees surrounding and the culture that then they'll be interacting and for many, many years to come."
Since we can see & hear Kirk discuss it with our own ears & eyes, we know it is not an allegation and because it is covered by several RS, the deleted edit should be reverted and this information should be included in this article. BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Aside from the text you added above being a pretty hefty copyvio, you have proven my point about the sentence I removed from the lead: The organization has also secretly attempted to influence student government elections in an effort to "combat liberalism on college and university campuses." The reasons being:

  1. - what he actually said was taken out of context,
  2. - it was spun in a way that was noncompliant with NPOV, and
  3. - it was a BLP vio because spinning it to seem nefarious and that he was in a fight ("combat") against "liberalism" is a derogatory accusation when he was actually talking about "really, really far-left campuses", and wanting to effectively neutralize them.

The Guardian and Time both published articles about campus clashes, so it's not like he was making stuff up. I have not seen or heard him say that TPUSA was on a mission to "combat liberalism". How is the fact that he will be campaigning to win student government elections a secret when his speech is all over YouTube, Twitter & FB? To summarize what he actually said is simply that they are looking at running and winnning student government races in the same way Congressional campaigns are run and won in that campaigns neither broadcast nor reveal their campaign strategies - that's just common sense. To date, that strategy is neither illegal nor nefarious, and should not be presented in the lead to appear as though it is. Atsme Talk 📧 18:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

To Atsme - I get that the RS is a paywall, similar to Wall Street Journal, so apparently you did not read the RS and therefore you are confused about the quote so you incorrectly think it's "out of context." And since you can't read past the paywall, it seems you've slipped into WP:OR territory. But, if you don't like the other sentence because you can't read behind the RS paywall, perhaps you'd prefer this sentence (in green below) as a substitute to the one you do not like:
TPUSA has a secret "undercover, underground operation" where they funnel thousands of TPUSA dollars into Student Government Association elections to get student candidates elected to "control tens of millions of dollars in student funding," to "censor professors," and to "retake a whole college university" which is what TPUSA did at Arizona State University. [6] [7] [8] Politico
To answer your question: Kirk called it a secret "undercover, underground operation" & funneling TPUSA money - and apparently is it so secret that you had never heard of it - even though he talked about it in 2015. BetsyRMadison (talk) 02:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Atsme, your claims that this is "taken out of context" etc. are just your own WP:OR. I seem to recall you being warned about engaging in precisely this kind of behavior on precisely this topic. Volunteer Marek 18:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
VM, what do you mean by "precisely this kind of behavior on precisely this topic"? And warned by whom? Atsme Talk 📧 21:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Here for example. Volunteer Marek 07:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Have you run out of substantive arguments to support your POV & decided that a WP:PA against me would be a stronger argument? Now that you've brought up sanctions, perhaps you've forgotten that you were sanctioned for PAs not that long ago, along with quite a few other sanctions over the years which anyone can easily research at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log. I'm not going to relitigate my prior, highly unconventional t-ban but will say that it was successfully appealed, and in that appeal, the no-smoking gun evidence was addressed by some uninvolved admins, one of whom saw the reality of what was happening, and what appears to be happening to me now...only this time, I'm not taking the bait, VM. Have a good day. Atsme Talk 📧 16:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I have NOT made any "PAs" against you. I pointed out that you are trying to substitute your own personal original research in place of reliable sources (that's the substantive argument you're pretending doesn't exist) and that you have been warned about precisely that kind of behavior previously. Falsely accusing someone of making personal attacks is itself a personal attack. Volunteer Marek 18:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Give way! Goalposts being moved! - BMK
So is this the latest technique? Complain about a lack of attribution, and then when attribution is given (in spades), call it a copyvio and ignore the fact that attribution has been provided? Do I hear the sound of goalposts being dug up to be moved? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
To Beyond My Ken - you made very excellent points. BetsyRMadison (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek, agree, this is well sourced. Minor disputes about wording aside, it's clearly a core project into which they have poured large sums of money, so is very significant. I wonder if they actually call it Project DARVO or whether they lack that degree of self-awareness? Since Atsme has failed to identify the purported BLP violations, there's no reason to exclude this. Guy (help!) 07:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Guy, if local consensus determines the sentence stays, then I will abide by consensus as I always have, but the PAs against me are unwarranted. I presented my case, the sentence is still in the lead, and whoever thinks it is important enough to call an RfC and fight to remove it can have at it, but I've seen what's been happening at Joe Biden and how the sexual allegations have been kept out of the lead, and I'm not going to die on that hill or this one. I've been bludgeoned enough with alot of unnecessary drama. As for the copyvio, I brought it to the attention of Moneytrees, a new admin who specializes in the copyvio area. It's out of my hands. Let consensus be your guide. Atsme Talk 📧 16:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Atsme, so all the comments about you are somehow bad faith, but your attempt to subvert consensus by switching from WP:CRYBLP to "copyvio" somehow is not? Sorry, not buying it. Guy (help!) 17:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I know you're not going to like this, but I see no issues with the quote. Sure, it's large, but in the context it's presented in it's not a violation; and for overly long quotes, context is what matters. Here are some examples of me removing overquoting; if there were a bunch of other large quotes around it, or an entire news article was pasted in, I might remove it, but it's not necessary in this case. I'm not really sure what's being argued about in this discussion, but I'm not interested in picking a side, so if you'll excuse me... Moneytrees🌴Talk🌲Help out at CCI! 17:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Guy, the copyvio has nothing to do with inclusion of the short sentence that was the subject of this discussion, unless the intent was to add that stub-sized block of text into the article. As I've already mentioned, I turned it over to the copyvio folks. WP:COPYVIO policy explains it well (my bold underline): However, copying material without the permission of the copyright holder from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed (unless it's a brief quotation used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content policy and guideline) is likely to be a copyright violation. Moneytrees, this is not BRM's first encounter with copyvio as evidenced here when she was advised by Diannaa. Happy editing. Atsme Talk 📧 17:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
You make it sound like BetsyRMadison's previous copyvio problem was a terrible thing, like she imported a huge amount of copyrighted text into an article. In point of fact, she included a small amount of text surrounding a quote when she should have described the circumstances and them cited the quote itself. A very minor violation, and nothing to justify branding her with a scarlet "CV". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Atsme, if your argument were true then we would need to shut down WikiQuote with immediate effect. Guy (help!) 23:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
This is my last comment about the copyvio. I did what I was supposed to do by pointing it out, and citing our key policy, WP:NFCC, which should be considered a priority. That policy, not copyright law, unequivocally supports my position. It is deliberately more restrictive than the law, and emphasizes the need to be brief. Per WP:NFCCEG: Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited. Actually, I see 2 copyrights involved here: (1) the video production company's watermarked video that was used & cited for the transcription, and (2) the speaker's copyright, which in this case, was used to support inclusion of challenged material that is not fully supported by the source, and is noncompliant with NPOV. Atsme Talk 📧 02:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@Atsme: your comment about one copyvio in my first few weeks here has nothing to do with the fact that Moneytrees has already told you that the quote I used as proof that you were incorrect to delete the edit, is not a copyvio, so it not clear why you brought that up. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Wait a minute, I'm confused. Above you accuse me of "a pretty hefty copyvio" but are you now saying you don't know if you were correct in accusing me? And, from your diff[9] to Moneytrees, you tack on a two brand new allegation & you suggest that if the proof I gave you can't be erased by your 'copyvio' accusation, then you ask/suggest it be removed due to 'stub.' And now that Moneytrees tells you that is it not a copyvio, you then want/ask someone else to erase the proof.
As I explained to you in another comment: there is no copyright holder to Charlie Kirk's 2015 public talk, at a public event, that some random youtuber uploaded to their youtube channel - of which several RS have reported on.
The topic of this section is: Whether you were justified in deleting the edit (in green) at the top of this section. You have told WP editors that we cannot use any of the over 16 RS reports which discredit your deletion. Your reasons to exclude all of the over 16 RS is based on your 'opinion' of policy violations: paywall, cherrypicking, spin, click, they're just allegations, and 14 other allegations.  In this diff [10]) you even go so far as to accuse the RS of basically lying with your unsubstantiated claim that the RS reports "contain sensationalized clickbait opinion." Then when I gave you proof, that it is a fact (not an allegation), you come up with two new allegations: "copyvio" & "stub" - which seem to indicate that you want to erase the proof that confirms/supports that the edit you deleted should be restored. I'm new here, but all these things added together: erase the proof and reject the over 16 RS whose reporting support that your deleted edit should be restored - seem to be extraordinary, very extraordinary. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Atsme - (in reply to your comment to me at timestamp 18:07, 29 June) - you accuse me of copyvio. You don't claim to suspect copyvio, you accuse as if you know it to be true matter-of-factly. I believe the ONUS is on you to prove copyvio. You have been on this talk page making the claim that TPUSA's secret "undercover, underground operation" to funnel thousands of TPUSA dollars into student government association elections to get student candidates elected in order to "control tens of millions of dollars in student funding" and to "censor professors" is only an allegation from a single source. When I prove you are mistaken, and that it is a fact (not an allegation) by giving you the quote of Charlie Kirk admitting to it, you seem to attempt to get the proof removed, or erased, or taken down, from this talk page by accusing me of copyvio. I do not question your 'good-faith' but I do question your intentions of making that accusation. Is your intent to remove the proof (which you incorrectly claimed was only an "allegation")? Is your intent to have the quote reduced? If you could please just state your intentions, perhaps that will enable us to understand what your point is regarding your accusation and what remedy you had in mind when you made that accusation.

Regarding your allegation of copyvio, which I believe the ONUS is on you to prove, I did some research and here's what I found: As a non-employee of a group hosting a public event in 2015, Charlie Kirk gave talk and answered questions, which was posted on some random person's youtube channel. The quote I provided (above in green) is a mixture of Kirk's answers & his talk. I have found no RS to support your claim that 'in 2015 Charlie Kirk's talk & answers are "copyrighted" at that public event.' I find no RS to support your claim anyone holds the copyright to Kirk's answers and talk in 2015 at that event. And I find no RS to support your claim that in 2015 Kirk's answers & talk are "non-free content" (which means no copyvio). I find no RS to support your claim that the group hosting the event held any copyright to that youtube video (that was uploaded on someone else's youtube channel). In fact, from what I found that group holds no copyright on any of their youtube videos, which is probably what enabled the other youtuber to upload the video in full. I found no RS to support your claim that TPUSA holds the copyright to Charlie Kirk's talk/answers in 2015. And, in my OR, I found no copyright to Kirk's talk/answers in 2015 within the US government's 'copyright search.' So, in short, I find no proof to your accusation against me of copyvio. (I should note here: 501c3 are limited to what they can copyright.)
Again, it would be nice if you could state the intent behind your accusation and what remedy you were hoping for when you tossed out that allegation. BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't see a BLP violation in this edit (also linked at the top of the thread). If there are concerns that, in the present state of the article, this material is only shows up in the lead, then it could be moved into the body. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

It is a matter of settled copyright law that the author of a speech owns copyright of that speech, provided that the fixation requirement (i.e., recording or publication) is met. As such, ‎ the author of the speech may exercise control over the reproduction, adaptation, distribution, and performance or display of the speech. Indeed, the author may issue a DMCA takedown notice‎ to YouTube, etc., as a copyright infringement.

I think what Moneytrees was referring to is Fair Use of the speech, not that Charlie Kirk lacks copyright ownership of his speech. ‎Arguably, reproducing the entire speech transcript here exceeds the bounds of Fair Use and our own guidelines (which are even more restrictive), and should be limited to brief quotes. 

In any case, Kirk's speech is a primary source, not the secondary sources which we should be citing.  JGHowes  talk 04:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)‎ ‎

Regardless of that, it entirely settles the question of factual evidence to support the statements made in the article, which is what is under discussion here. The question of whether we can use X amount or Y amount is irrelevant to the question of whether Kirk's words support the statements, which they do. Being unable to use the full amount because of copyright law or NFCC does not mean that those words no longer exist; they do, and we know where they are, and they can be cited. The copyright violation is a complete red herring, not relevant to the actual discussion here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
And, of course -- just to state the obvious -- primary sources aren't banned, they simply have to be used with caution, per WP:PRIMARY. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
JGHowes - I'll start with this: I feel that the comments in this section shows that the ONUS to restore the deleted edit has been satisfied (which is what this section is about).
As to the allegation of copyvio: The "answers" a person (Charlie Kirk) gives to questions from an audience member are not copyrighted. I transcribed Kirk's "verbal answers" (not speech) to questions from members of the audience - so there is no copyvio. In the youtube video, at timestamp 18:02, the Q/A session begins and the audience begins asking questions to Kirk. I partially transcribed Kirk's verbal answers that Kirk gave at timestamp 18:18 (16 minuets into the Q/A). If you notice, I never called the partial transcript a "speech" & that's because it was not a speech. It was answers/talk a discussion (not a speech). So I hope that clarification helps you, and others, understand why it is not a copyvio and why no one holds any copyright to Kirk's verbal answers. I feel this whole copyvio issue has been an unnecessary distraction that needs to end. The real focus is this: the ONUS to restore the deleted edit appears to be satisfied. BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
2 issues. 1. The sentence needs to summarize the material from the body. It currently does not though I’m sure it can be edited to do so. Second the two citations did not support the sentence. The sentence says "secret” in wiki voice. Is that supported? Springee (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
BetsyRMadison, I urge you to cease opining as if you were a copyright expert. I don't pretend to be an expert — just about every day I learn how complex the subject is, so I'm reticent to pretend that I'm an expert, but I do have some experience with how Wikipedia's copyright policy works. Up thread you stated

I have found no RS to support your claim that 'in 2015 Charlie Kirk's talk & answers are "copyrighted" at that public event.'

I dealt with hundreds of violators of our copyright policy who are under the misunderstanding that if you can't find an affirmative statement that something is copyrighted that this means it is in copyrighted. As is explained in Copyright, the Berne Convention explains that copyright is "automatically in force creation". The US became a signatory to the Berne Convention in 1989.
I take it that you are aware that speeches are covered by both copyright law and Wikipedia copyright policy. I am intrigued by your contention that answers to questions do not qualify as speeches. I presume you are attempting this distinction to argue that such responses are therefore not subject to copyright law or Wikipedia copyright policy. I've never heard this claim made before, but I don't claim to have read everything so can you provide me with a reliable source explaining that answers to questions are not protected by copyright? S Philbrick(Talk) 20:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Sphilbrick - 1) In this diff [11] Moneytrees ruled/said there is no copyvio. Did you know that? 2) In this diff [12] Atsme says he/she asked Moneytrees to rule on the copyvio because Moneytrees specializes in copyright. Did you know that? 2) It was not a speech, not even close. Did you know that? 3) I transcribed "random answers" -- random answers -- that Charlie Kirk gave to random questions from random people sitting in chairs. Are you saying that you have proof, or some legal document, that says random answers to random questions from random people are copyrighted? Are the random questions being asked copyrighted too? Are you saying that you have proof that it is a copyright violation to partially transcribe the random answers to random questions from random people? Can you show me the wikicopyright policy that says 'random answers to random questions from random people are copyrighted'? I'd love to see that. Also, are random answers to random questions, from random people covered in US copyright laws?
Like I said, Moneytrees already settled this & said there is no copyvio. So at this point, while I appreciate your concern, I really do, the whole copyvio allegation is an unnecessary distraction. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
BetsyRMadison, Moneytrees did not issue a ruling. Moneytrees is very knowledgeable about copyright. In fact, in the last hour I pinged Moneytrees (User_talk:Diannaa#AN_OTRS_inquiry_relayed_to_Copyright) to get their thoughts about the copyright issue. As I suspect you are aware, even experts can disagree about edge cases. Almost anytime some material is placed in quotes, it becomes an edge case, and it is not surprising that experts will reach different conclusions. Moneytrees shared their opinion but that doesn't make it a ruling. Short of ArbCom, I'm not sure any individual or group is authorized to make a ruling about anything.
"...the whole copyvio allegation is an unnecessary distraction" A point of agreement. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


The content deleted had one source cited to reference the comments made about racism which I link here. I agree that sole WP:RS connected with the content deleted due to claims of racism are found to be clickbait, sensational and should definitely be removed, as well as the summary of the source in the lede to be quite baseless from the source material. If you read the article cited it only mentions one single employee who accused TPUSA of engaging in racist activities. She was fired due to her inability to perform her job up to standards. She was fired on “MLK” day which she thought was “rude”, not to be mistaken with racist. I can not emphasize how important it is that editors can discern the difference between rudeness and racism, this former employee also states that she saw white people also being mistreated at TPUSA, which is an admission that her mistreatment had nothing to do with race. Now after reading the article it is clear that Atsme’s deletion was not erroneous. There is one singular WP:RS for the content adhering to racism, which would be considered quite an exceptional claim, which is why Atsme labeling this violation as WP:REDFLAG is in actuality correct.( Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources). I googled TPUSA racist allegations and couldn’t find any other independent/reliable sources other than the New Yorker piece covering this incident. If you’re trying to lump in the fact that Crystal Clanton fired this employee and it is somehow related to her sending a text that said “I hate black people” you’re doing so through WP:SYNTHESIS (*do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source). Atsme has claims to several other violations being broken which have merit, however this is enough to determine WP:ONUS in satisfying the deletion of the content in question as is. EliteArcher88 (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Concerning removal of material from this article

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Although not yet This has been listed at WP:ANRFC, there have been calls to close at WP:BLPN, this RfC has been open 59 30 days, and the most recent substantive comment on the actual article text was 20 days ago. Taken together those factors make it ripe for evaluation. The comments in the last two days are not relevant per WP:NHC and evaluation of the general consensus of the discussion is made ...after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. Although the initial RfC posed the question as inclusion or removal of the text at issue in terms of a single edit, there is agreement by the participants that the text as originally proposed did not comply with multiple policies when evaluated as a whole. Most editors below evaluated the text as two separate pieces and that discussion must be respected by this close. The difficulty comes in evaluating what the remaining acceptable text would be. The first part of the original text and two compromise proposals were mooted by various participants but some participants in the discussion about the original text did not comment on the later-proposed compromises and their views on which alternative text is preferable cannot therefore be assumed. Other editors commented favorably on one possible text but not on others or otherwise did not make it clear which alternative they preferred. There is a clear consensus is to remove the material about Lambert's separation from Students for Trump/Turning Point Action and subsequent actions. The exact wording of the retained material about Turning Point USA's purchase of Students For Trump and Charlie Kirk's involvement and goals related to that purchase should be addressed through the normal editing cycle or a subsequent clearly-stated RfC. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC) Close edited to correct some minor misstatements about timing and notice. This is a correction for strict accuracy and does not change the analysis or ripeness of the discussion above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

An editor is attempting to remove this material from this article on the grounds that Turning Point USA's political action committee, Turning Point Action, is legally not the same organization as TPUSA. Should this material be kept in the article, or should it be removed? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Material in qestion

==2020 Presidential election==

In May 2019, Kirk created a new 501(c)(4) organization, a political action committee intended to target Democrats, called Turning Point Action,[1] which purchased the assets of Students for Trump.[2] Students for Trump had been founded in 2015 at Campbell University in Buies Creek, North Carolina by John Lambert and Ryan Fournier. Lambert left the organization some time after Trump's election, and in August 2019 he pled guilty to creating a fake law firm and posing as an experienced lawyer. The scam netted him over $46,000, which he will forfeit. Lambert also faces prison time. After Lambert's arrest in April, Students for Trump distanced themselves from him.[3]

References

  1. ^ Schwartz, Brian. "Pro-Trump college GOP activist Charlie Kirk will launch a new group to target Democrats in 2020". www.cnbc.com. CNBC. Archived from the original on July 22, 2019. Retrieved 22 July 2019.
  2. ^ "Turning Point Action Launches 2020 Expansion, Acquires 'Students for Trump'". Students for Trump. Retrieved 21 July 2019.
  3. ^ Brown, Stephen Red (August 6, 2019) "Students for Trump founder pleads guilty to posing as lawyer in $46K scam" Archived August 7, 2019, at the Wayback Machine New York Daily News

Survey

  • Keep - Turning Point Action was created by Charlie Kirk, the founder and head of Turning Point USA, to be TPUSA's political action committee to fulfill its political goals and take actions that TPUSA, as a 501(c)(3) cannot legally do. Although the parent organization and the PAC are legally separate entities, they are not independent of each other, as each is controlled and directed by Charlie Kirk. The creation of Turning Point Action was a legal necessity in order for political actions to be taken that if it took them, would lose TPUSA its status as a charitable educational organization. Given this, and given that the lede clearly says what the article is about: "Turning Point USA (TPUSA) is an American conservative nonprofit organization. TPUSA's affiliated organizations include Turning Point News, the Turning Point Endowment, Turning Point Action, and Students for Trump," the material is relevant, and the removal of it is inappropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - I just removed noncompliant material, and my concern now is SYNTH. These are two separate instances, and while it can be added in the body text, it doesn't belong in the lead, and it also must be added per NPOV. Atsme Talk 📧 14:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
    BLP vio - moved here which is the correct section - While this article is not a BLP, the mention of Kirk is still a BLP vio and an attempt at guilt by association for something John Lambert did which makes this a BLP vio, and must be removed. My attempt to remove it was reverted. There is an obvious attempt to associate Kirk with Lambert who pleaded guilty to something totally unrelated. The latter also results in violations of SYNTH & NPOV to make the connection between 2 legally separate entities with one common denominator which is Kirk as founder, and the target of the guilt by association attempt. Atsme Talk 📧 13:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Your deletion edit was inappropriate to make in the middle of an RfC. I've reverted to the status quo ante. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Nope - this RfC had nothing to do with what I removed, so I took the issue to BLP/N. See you there. Atsme Talk 📧 16:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
On the contrary, this RfC is precisely about the material you inappropriately deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
BMK, Atsme is correct, the material she removed was not related to the RfC. The RfC material shouldn't stay or go based on being part of a RfC. In this case it appears the material was part of the stable article so removal would be considered a change thus it should stay until the RfC is closed. If it were newly added material it would be out until/assuming the RfC closes with a consensus for include. The material removed from the lead is not related to the paragraph in question as part of this RfC. Springee (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
No, Springee, as is usually the case, you are incorrect. The aterial is directly related and should not have been removed in the middle of this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Beyond My Ken Casting aspersions by calling an editor 'usually incorrect' in an RfC, on an article talk page, is highly inappropriate and honestly, quite offensive. petrarchan47คุก 18:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • It has nothing whatsoever to do with WP:Casting aspersions. You didn't like what I said, fine, you have a right to your opinion -- and so do I about how often Springee is wrong. Do you really think it has any effect on anyone else's contribution to this RfC? I really doubt it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, you are incorrect. The subject of the RfC is clearly the S4T group. The material removed from the lead had nothing to do with S4T. You certainly can challenge the removal as you are restoring the stable version of the lead but your "active RfC" justification is flat wrong. Springee (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
This RfC is about the removal of sourced material in pursuit of whitewashing it. Atsme's removal was simply another example of that, and the claims she makes at BLPN are absurd. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Evidence that you are casting aspersions against me is in your edit summary of this diff and in the reason you gave for hatting the discussion below. I have also included your actions at the discussion I opened at BLPN. It is very disheartening. Atsme Talk 📧 23:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
So your claim is that my edit summary of "Restore collapse of side discussion not pertinent to the RfC" is "casting aspersions" against you? Really!? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
To answer your question, you said the discussion you hatted was irrelevent when it was about the notice I provided for this RfC which is absolutely relevant. You claimed that my notice was not neutral when it was, and here you used my action as an example of "whitewashing" when I was simply removing unfounded allegations based on biased opinions and a comment that was violative of WP:BLPGROUP in the lead. I didn't think accusing you of bullying, bludgeoning editors or lying about my actions would be a better choice of words and that is why I used casting aspersions. I saw that you struck some of your aspersions against Springee but left the ones about me in tact along with your threat of taking me to ANI over the mistakes you have made. Atsme Talk 📧 14:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
For those who would like to respond the Atse's claims on BLPN, the discussion is here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is pretty basic information, exactly of the kind that should go into the lede. Volunteer Marek 16:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete the last 4 sentences as the info about Lambert is more pertinent to the Students 4 Trump article. I'm concerned about WP:synthesis and WP:UNDUE since Turning Point did not acquire Students 4 Trump until after Lambert's arrest when he had already left the organization. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Side discussion not pertinent to the RfC
  • WP:Canvassing calls for notices to be put on ALL the WikiProjects which claim jurisdiction over this article, not just the one you select. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Settle down - I'm still adding. If you want to add some, go ahead, nobody is stopping you. Atsme Talk 📧 17:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't see anything unsettled about BMK's reminder. O3000 (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I do. WP:APPNOTE does not require all interested wikiprojects to be notified. It prohibits the audience being selected on the basis of their opinion. You cannot really argue that was done with Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics over the other projects. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
WP:Canvass: Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior. Atsme's notification of only one WikiProject was inappropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
That is a reinforcement of the prohibition of choosing the audience on the basis of their opinion. You cannot prove that wikiproject was selected to influence this discussion a particular way. It's not obvious to me the particular viewpoint that WikiProject POLITICS is supposed to provide compared to say, Wikiproject Conservatism. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Having just reviewed the RfC notification, the one placed by Atsme was neutral as was BMK's updated version. BMK should not have changed the notification but the difference between the two isn't worth fighting over. It's not clear how a notification to Project Politics could be seen as non-neutral unless the implication is participating editors are predominately one side or the other. If that is the case it should be stated as such. I see no issue with notifying other interested projects. Springee (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Neutral pointers to this RfC have been placed on the talk pages of all WikiProjects listed above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Reverted the removal of neutral pointers to this RfC by BMK - they were neutral and stated exactly what this RfC states. Atsme Talk 📧 17:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Here is the neutral pointer I placed:

    ==RfC on Turning Point USA==

    An RfC which may be of interest to the members of this project can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

    This is absiutely neutral, so I am about to revert your reversion If you touch them again, it's going directly to AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • What you are saying is that this RfC is not neutral, and needs to be recalled. I simply stated what the RfC states An editor is attempting to remove the following material from this article:. Atsme Talk 📧 17:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Nope, I am saying that by quoting the name of the RfC, instead of simply linking to it, as I did, you're giving the people you want to reach a reason to come here -- and indeed they have, perhaps thanks to you "neutral" note to "talk page stalkers" on your talk page [13]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • BMK - you really need to stop hatting pertinent notices and discussions to this RfC like you just did ^^^. Please self-revert the notice, and the pertinent discussion about that notice and stop threatening editors to take them to AN/I over your own mistakes. Atsme Talk 📧 13:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Actually, no, I really do not. The discussion was about notifications, not about the subject of the RfA, and it is therefore not pertinent. There will be no self-revert. You've just been praised by User:El_C for "deescalating", please don't re-start an argument that has been put to sleep already. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete at least the part about Lambert after leaving the organization. This sort of implied, guilt by inference is absolutely not OK in any Wikipedia article. The part about Lambert appears to have been something Lambert was charged with group TPUSA acquired. Additionally the source does not support that the crime in question was related to the student organization. Since the article doesn't say Lambert's alleged crime involved S4T the material is not DUE for inclusion in this article. This reads as a implying guilt via association which is a violation of SYNTH. (I'm here after seeing the noticeboard discussion of this topic) Springee (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • You're actually saying that it is "guilt by association" to connect Turning Point USA with its political action committee? I don't know whether to laugh or cry.Beyond My Ken (talk)
  • I think it's clear. The crime alleged to have been committed by someone who never worked for TPUSA is UNDUE in this article. Drop the incivility. Springee (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • As I said below, I can live with the final 3 sentences being dropped. I cannot, however, agree to pulling mention of Turning Point Action from the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • In that case we are in agreement. Now please excuse me as I check for burning sulphur falling from the sky. Springee (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Side discussion about formatting, not pertinent to the main discussion
  • From CNBC:

Charlie Kirk, a firebrand conservative activist and staunch supporter of President Donald Trump, is preparing to unveil a nonprofit that will allow his organization to campaign against Democrats during the 2020 election season.

CNBC discovered Kirk’s new organization, called Turning Point Action, after reviewing an embedded donor link that shows the soon-to-be-finalized group targeting Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn.

“Far-left radical Ilhan Omar doesn’t even want the Department of Homeland Security to receive ‘1 DOLLAR’ to enforce immigration laws and stop terrorists from infiltrating our open border,” the page reads. It adds: “Let’s show her how much we’re willing to donate to fight to REMOVE HER from office.”

The page concludes with a notice that Turning Point Action is a 501(c)(4) entity, which by law can campaign either for or against candidates running for office. Many of the themes expressed by Turning Point USA, either through its digital content or at its events, will be part of Turning Point Action’s messaging in 2020, the spokesman added. In the past, Kirk has advocated for a border wall and attacked political correctness on college campuses. He’s been one of Trump’s most vocal advocates and the commander in chief has noticed as he praised him at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference.

Based on the strong fundraising apparatus of Turning Point USA, its new sister organization will likely not have any issues raising cash for a 2020 operation.

According to Turning Point USA’s most recent tax filing, the group raised just more than $8 million in the fiscal year ended in June 2017, which was almost double from the prior cycle. [14]

Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete the last three four sentences. "Purchased the assets" means Students for Trump is quite distinct from Turning Point, and so the material about Lambert is irrelevant here. StAnselm (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC) I'm really sorry about this. I miscounted the sentences. StAnselm (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • That's reasonable, I can live with that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry, what I though was "reasonable" was your first statement, re: 3 sentences, not your revised statement re: 4 sentences. However, see below re: 3.5 sentences, Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • First choice: Keep in full. Basic information about the org, with lots of RS coverage. Second choice: Keep everything except the last three sentences. I'm opposed to full deletion though. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep part, remove part per StAnselm, et al. - what happened before it was part of TPUSA doesn't seem necessary to include. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete last four sentences and move remaining sentence Last four sentences are not related to TPUSA, inappropriate to have, must be deleted. First sentence should be moved to Charlie Kirk section, which is the most relevant section (he is the only link between Turning Point Action and Turning Point USA). MaximusEditor (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I do not agree. The date of founding and founders of Students for Trump are both relevant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete the second to last (5 of 6) sentence and the one before it (4 of 6). I would say its a strong keep on the rest through. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete the last four sentences as they are not related to Turning Point USA. --Enos733 (talk) 04:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • First choice: Keep in full. Second choice: Keep everything except the last three sentences. This is all unarguably true, so the only question is whether it's "fair" - I think it is, but it's certainly something on which reasonable people may differ. Guy (help!) 11:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't think it's relevant whether or not TPUSA is split into more than one organization. WP:UNDUE and borderline off topic. See also WP:COATRACK. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • You've totally missed the point, I think. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment For those still confused about the relationship between TPUSA and its political action committee, Turning Point Action:
  • Charlie Kirk founded Turning Point USA - a fact, not controversial.
  • Charlie Kirk is the head of TPUSA as of June 30, 2018 - a fact, not controversial - 2017 IRS Form 990,
  • Charlie Kirk founded Talking Point Action as TYPUSA's political action committee - a fact, not controversial - CNBC article,
  • Charlie Kirk is the head of Turning Point Action as of June 30, 2018 - a fact, not controversial - 2017 IRS Form 990O.
QED. Charlie Kirk runs and controls both organization, which are separated by a fig leaf, not a Chinese Wall. Turning Point Action admits that TPUSA's ideology will be the basis of their political actions. [15] Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Whether demonstrandum or not, it certainly is DUE. O3000 (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, but w/o the portion that starts with "Lambert left the organization..." as it's not quite relevant to TPUSA. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep but MODIFY and MOVE to new section Yes I agree that all the facts you shared are true, but notice what you start every single fact out with..."Charlie Kirk" as he is the one singular common denominator. Therefore the ONLY real acceptable option would be to move it under the "Charlie Kirk" section and modify the sentence to: "In May 2019, Kirk created a new 501(c)(4) organization, a political action committee called Turning Point Action, which purchased the assets of Students for Trump, founded in 2015 at Campbell University." This accomplishes pretty much everything, keeps it in the article, moves it out of TPUSA and into Charlie Kirks section where it should legitimately be. This wouldn't really even be a problem if Turning Point Action had its own article, if it apparently is so "notable" some users won't abide not mentioning it, TurningPoint USA did not purchase the assets from S4T, TurningPoint Action did.EliteArcher88 (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - Like most here I think the main problems lie with the last 4 sentences and should be deleted. It is not related to the organization. The same should be looked at in the Students for Trump article which details the Lambert stuff as well. Though I need to look more closely at the timeline of events there. PackMecEng (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete TPAction should have its own page, its hard to say its not notable enough to warrant its own page if some users will not abide deleting a non-relevant company from Turning Point USA's article. Relevant to Charlie Kirk YES, absolutely relevant( it belongs under his section) I see some users thinking that moving it there is white washing TPUSA's article because of some sort of association with TPACTION, but they aren't associated EXCEPT FOR CHARLIE KIRK, and yet again I ask why Charlie Kirk doesnt have his own page? Eruditess (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Including the fact that Lambert, who together with Kirk both found "students for Trump," pleaded guilty in August 2019 to wire fraud and faces up to 20 years in prison.[16] By including the actual felony Lambert pled guilty to the sentence would read,
In May 2019, Kirk created a new 501(c)(4) organization, a political action committee intended to target Democrats, called Turning Point Action, which purchased the assets of Students for Trump. Students for Trump had been founded in 2015 at Campbell University in Buies Creek, North Carolina by John Lambert and Ryan Fournier. Lambert left the organization some time after Trump's election, and in August 2019 he pled guilty to: wire fraud, creating a fake law firm, and posing as an experienced a licensed lawyer. Lambert's fraud The scam netted him over $46,000, which he will forfeit, and now he faces 20 years in prison. Lambert also faces prison time. After Lambert's arrest in April 2019, Students for Trump distanced themselves from him.
it is basic & important information that belongs in the lead. BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete It is discouraging that this is even a matter for debate. The article purports to be about Turning Point USA. it is understandable that such an article might have a brief mention of the founder, although ideally this should be a standalone article about the founder with an extremely brief summary in this article and a link to the biography of the founder. I don't know the history but I'm guessing there was a standalone article and it got merged into this article but that's made a hash of things. Much of the section about the founder logically belongs in a bio about the founder but not in a section merely identifying the founder of this particular organization. If someone wants to make an article about turning point action go for it, but it doesn't belong in this article. if someone wants to create a standalone article about Charlie Kirk it logically would include a discussion of turning point action (but would not include the mud smearing about people not connected to turning point action). I see some discussion of compromise positions but those make more sense in the context of what belongs in a standalone article about Charlie Kirk not information that belongs in this article which is about a particular organization.S Philbrick(Talk) 22:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

  • Proposal what do folks think about this compromise, removing 3.5 sentences:

    In May 2019, Kirk created a new 501(c)(4) organization, a political action committee intended to target Democrats, called Turning Point Action,[1] which purchased the assets of Students for Trump,[2] founded in 2015 at Campbell University.

    Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - irrelevant to this article. It is a separate legal entity and does not belong in this article. Atsme Talk 📧 16:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC) Accept with a caveat - (my caveat is speaking to Turning Point USA because it needs to be fixed before any new stuff is added 17:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)) - it should include more about who they are and not boldly that they are targeting Democrats which is not neutral. For example, the BBC states: Turning Point pre-dates Donald Trump's presidency - it was formed in 2012 - and is non-partisan. They support conservatism, rather than the Republican Party. Some of the Creighton chapter - including the founder - didn't vote for Mr Trump, and the treasurer is a Democrat. But nationally, there are links between Turning Point and the president. Also see Politico. Those RS are following more in line with NPOV. Atsme Talk 📧 14:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • That description is supported by a reliable source. If you have reliable sources that support your contention about Turning Point Action, the political action committee, and not Turning Point USA, please provide them. Beyond My Ken (talk)
  • Accept. And although Turning Point predates Trump, Turning Point Action does not. StAnselm (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Sourced and obviously DUE. O3000 (talk) 15:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support but integrate I think BMK has addressed the big issue with the previous text. It may reduce the length of the section to the point where it would make more sense to put the 2016 and 2020 sections together. I don't see the integrate issue as a make or break issue regardless. Springee (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I've struck the comment about integration not being important. I agree with MaximusEditor, EliteArcher88 and PackMechEng that TPS is not part of TPUSA and thus should not be presented in a way that would imply that it was. Integration into the material about Kirk (or perhaps some other option) would address this. Legally one is not a subservient to the other and the Wikipedia article should not imply it. If RS imply that Kirk would use his control over both to coordinate actions then that could be spelled out explicitly. It's simply not OK for the article to imply or suggest one is a part of the other. Springee (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Hmmm. Seems a bit light on just how problematic S4T are. Guy (help!) 18:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Guy: I'm not familiar with the usage "S4T". I'm sure it stands for something I'm aware of, but I can't think of what it is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • BeyondMyKen: I believe "S4T" stands for "Students for Trump". MaximusEditor (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Accept with changes Need to remove "... a political action committee intended to target Democrats, …", you are using Wikipedia's voice to infer this is the official position of TPAction, where did you find that? This RS indicates that "... The group's official launch is expected June 1 …" (ten days after the RS) and the fundraising link using Democrat Ilhan Ohmar was a beta phase test link, so this is not factual information coming from TPAction, it is the RS interpretation of a donor test link. The RS implies they are targeting Democrats and also WP:HEADLINE. This needs to be WP:NPOV . MaximusEditor (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The context of CNBC's discovery of the imminent launch of TPA was a campaign against Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Democrat. Later in the article, a Talking Point represenative wouldn;t name which Democrats TPA will be targeting, but did not deny that it was going to target Democrats: "The group’s official launch is expected June 1, according to a Turning Point Action representative who explained that the Omar link was the first of many beta phases to see what resonates with potential supporters. The representative also acknowledged that Kirk’s new entity will allow him and his allies to be more active in directly taking on candidates they oppose. The spokesperson declined to name the other Democrats they’ll be targeting, or the types of media formats they intend to use. [17] Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Partial support, You can see my full reasoning in the RFC section above, but really boils down to , (pending it advances past the BLP noticeboard) moving it to the Charlie Kirk section, heres how I propose the sentence should read:
"Kirk created a new 501(c)(4) organization, a political action committee , called Turning Point Action,[1] which purchased the assets of Students for Trump,[2] founded in 2015 at Campbell University."
The subject of the sentence is Kirk (as he created it, not TurningPoint USA). Therefore should be moved to the corresponding section for accuracy and relevancy.EliteArcher88 (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • No, sorry, you're attemoting to create a distinction between Kirk and Turning Point, but it's a distinction without a difference. Kirk is TPUSA, just as he is TPA. Neither entity does something unless Kirk wants it to be done. The sentence is fine as it is, and should not be changed in an effort to whitewash TPUSA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Disagree, I have no idea how moving a sentence that starts with "Charlie Kirk created a new 501(c)(4) org..." to the "Charlie Kirk" section is Whitewashing? I don't care if we keep the part about targeting democrats if that's what you are inferring is whitewashing. But keeping it out of the Charlie Kirk section is inaccurate , keeping it as is would be irresponsible because it could confuse readers through some sort of synthesis that TPUSA targets democrats because its one and the same with Charlie Kirk, and because Charlie Kirk is also one and the same with TPAction they must all be be one entity, which is factually incorrect, and facts matter on Wikipedia, its not really up to interpretation. EliteArcher88 (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support (Summoned by bot): this compromise removes unrelated statements that are unambiguously solely about Lambert and includes sourced information relevant to the article. Alduin2000 (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • General question is there any legal relationship between TPUSA and TPAction? I can see how articles about Kirk would tie the two together and I wouldn't be surprised if there is actual coordination. Still, I agree with those who say this should be part of the Kirk section. It should not be presented as if it were something TPUSA has done because it isn't. Sometimes we have tech entrepreneurs who create multiple companies. Company A and B may be in related fields but their link is only via a common founder, not because company B is part of A. Since this legally isn't something TPUSA has done (ie it is not part of TPUSA) it should not be presented as if it were TPUSA's 2020 election action plan. I see no reason to remove it from the article but it should not be a stand alone topic within the article. That suggests a organizational structure which does not exist. If such a relationship does exist we need a good RS that explicitly says as much. Springee (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The question is irrelevant. They are separate legal entities. TPA was created by Kirk because TUSA is forbidden by US law from taking political actions. Both organizations, however, are led and controlled by Kirk, and TPUSA reps answer questions pertaining to TPA. They are de facto not independent from each other. We're not lawyers or law-enforcement officials, we don't have to recognize the fig leaf that separates them. Reliable media sources understand that they are not independent, and report on them as such, and we report what they say. All this guff about not being the same is, at the bottom, WP:OR.
    I also have absolutely no doubt that if the SPLC had a political action committee, the same people who want TPUSA and TPA to be treated as legally separate entities would be clamoring for the SPLC and its PAC to be treated together. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Not at all irrelevant. If they are legally separate entities then we shouldn't place actions by Kirk with respect to TPA in a category that talks about actions TPUSA is taking. To be honest, when I first read this I just assumed TPA was something TPUSA was doing as a legally separate yet controlled entity. This is something companies do when they want to set up a legally independent entity for various reasons. However, it turns out this is not something TPUSA is doing. This is something the founder of TPUSA is doing and thus it should be under the section about the founder (or not included). Also, Atmse is correct in raising BLP concerns here. If you are going to say Kirk and TPUSA are one and the same then we need to treat the accusations against TPUSA as accusations against Kirk himself. Your argument regarding SPLC is a bit off as a parallel. I agree that if the SPLC created a PAC people would want that in the SPLC article. However, it might be different if it were the founder of the SPLC, acting outside of the SPLC. Even then I can see it being DUE for inclusion since I suspect RSs link the two. However, we have to be honest with readers and make sure they understand this is something Kirk did, not something TPUSA did. That is why putting it into the Kirk section makes sense while keeping in a category that implies it is part of TPUSA is not acceptable. If you feel highlighting it is important then perhaps as a subsection under Kirk. Do note that if we want to highlight it we need RSs saying why it needs extra emphasis. Springee (talk) 01:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • You mean other than being relevant because it's a question of should the remaining content be slotted under something TPUSA did (which would be false) or slotted under something Kirk did. You saying something is irrelevant doesn't mean much other than that is your opinion. It would be a better opinion if it were supported with sufficient reasoning. Springee (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree with Springee, Kirk is a person, TPUSA is a company, TPACTION is a different company. A company is not a person (literally by definition), some people have the opinion they are the same, but its simply not true in this case.Eruditess (talk) 02:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Actually, the evidence from their IRS filings shows that Kirk runs both of them, so they are, in fact, related through him. But, clearly, you folks are WP:IDHT about that. You're also ignoring the fact that non-profit (c)(3)s routinely creating PAC (c)(4)s to do their political action for them, it's is not a new thing, it happens all the time. Such ignorance is being shown here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I ask you not dismiss Springee's concerns, they are legitmate and neutral, and in my opinion quite spot on. I'm on the record as saying:Relevant to Charlie Kirk YES, absolutely relevant( it belongs under his section), so we both agree he runs TPUSA & TPACTION and is relevant, everybody I think agrees that is the case, nobody is disputing that. So how are we WP:IDHT ? In fact, you even say Kirk runs both of them, so they are, in fact, related through him. I emphasize, related through him. So seems pretty common sense to move it to the , "Charlie Kirk" section. If you think we are refusing to move things along I'll just start a new compromise proposal that uses the sentence you proposed and moves it to where it seems most common sense, I believe this solves almost all problems by honoring all the people who support the new sentence change you proposed and moving it to the most relevant section, which seems to be the only remaining concern halting the progress of the rfc. Eruditess (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The part on Lambert was perfectly fine for the Students for Trump article, but not here. I think we can all agree that this version has all the pertinent information, without synthesis.Homemade Pencils (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support This keeps to the relevant stuff. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

New Compromise proposal

Seems that most editors agree to use the following sentence proposed by BeyondMyKen, yet are not in consensus to where it should be relocated: 

   In May 2019, Kirk created a new 501(c)(4) organization, a political action committee intended to target Democrats, called Turning Point Action,[1] which purchased the assets of Students for Trump,[2] founded in 2015 at Campbell University.

I propose we keep the sentence just like that and move it under the "Charlie Kirk" section, Charlie being the common single denominator between TPUSA & TPACTION. The fact is that despite TPACTION and TPUSA having KIRK in common, they are two legally separate organizations which in reality calls for them to have two separate articles. But since that isn't an option yet, move it to the "next" most relevant section, that being "Charlie Kirk" section.Eruditess (talk) 05:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Eruditess, I don't think we should WP:COATRACK material into one article simply because two logical places for the material (a standalone article on Turning Point Action, or, better yet a standalone article on Charlie Kirk) don't exist. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Not 100% sure I agree that its WP:COATRACK but there does seem to be a pretty strong case for a standalone article on Charlie Kirk, that would certainly be a more appropriate home. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
There once was a standalone article on Kirk at Charlie Kirk (activist), and consensus was that he had no notability outside of Turning Point, so that article was merged into this. The question of whether he should have a separate article has come up at least once since then, and probably several timies, and each time (as far as I can recall) the consensus was to keep things as they are. Those discussions should be available in various archives.
I, for one, do not see Kirk as notable enough outside of his Turning Point empire to have a separate article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
After reviewing those there seems to be a pretty clear consensus to include any Charlie Kirk related information on this page here. In that light I support the inclusion of the TPACTION material here for now. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Horse Eye Jack, Let's see if I understand this. There is consensus that there is not enough to say about Charlie Kirk outside of his involvement in Turning Point USA, so there is no justification of a standalone article about Charlie Kirk. Now you were trying to decide what to do with information about Turning Point Action, which is not really biographical information about Kirk, and it is clearly not about Turning Point USA, so doesn't really belong in the Turning Point USA article, and while it logically belongs in an article about Charlie Kirk if it existed, that doesn't exist, so either create a standalone article about Turning Point Action, or if there is not enough to justify an article, then abandon it. What's the problem? Either it's important enough to justify revisiting the standalone article about Charlie Kirk or it's too minor to mention. S Philbrick(Talk) 00:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the assertion that information about Turning Point Action does not belong in this article. The PAC was created to implement TPUSA's ideology in ways that TPUSA is not legally allowed to do. The creation of (c)(4) PACs connected to (c)(3) non-profits is not at all unusual in American politics these days, and everyone and their Aunt Fanny understands that although legally distinct, the two entities are bound together by ideology and leadership. I've presented evidence from the IRS database that shows that both TPUSA and TPA are headed by Charlie Kirk, and citations from the media that show that the media understands them to be sister organizations.
We are not bound by the legal nicety that they're separate any more than we would have been bound not to consider the Standard Oil Trust as an entity, or the Bell System as an entity, even though the individual parts of it were legally separate organizations - they had interlocking ownership, and were most certainly controlled from the top down.
It does absolutely no service to our readers to present to them the fiction that TPUSA and TPA are not connected, in fact, it does a distinct disservice, because it presents a legal fiction as being a real world fact, which it is not. The only ones who gain by removing information about TPA from this article are those attemptpng to whitewash it and make it look as poositive as possible for Charlie Kirk. That's not NPOV editing, that's clearly oPOV editing.
I plead with thse involved in this discussion who want to see the article be as useful and accurate as possible not to fall in the trap that's being laid here of considering two entities separated by nothing more than a legal fig leaf as being unconnected to each other. The facts are clearly otherwise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Horse Eye Jack, As an analogy, imagine that we were working on an article about Coca-Cola the beverage, not the manufacturing company. suppose somebody proposed including a section about Fanta (maybe they were just looking for an excuse to talk about Nazis). it doesn't make sense to include information about Fanta in the article about the beverage, even though they are manufactured by the same Corporation. The article about the Corporation would obviously have a section about Coca-Cola the beverage, and Fanta and many other things. if there were no article about the Corporation on the argument that there is not much more to be said beyond Coca-Cola the beverage, one might argue that was true at some times but if Fanta is worth mentioning, then the corporation that manufactures them both is worth an article. S Philbrick(Talk) 00:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I think the analogy would work better if John Pemberton had also invented Fanta. I think a page for either Kirk or this other organization might be in order. We can’t really have it both ways, either we say that TPACTION is separate and different enough from TPUSA to have no business on this page (in which case we would have to find somewhere else to cover it) or we accept that TPACTION isn't notably different from TPUSA and cover it here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
A quick google says theres been more than enough coverage of Turning Point Action to justify its own page if we consider it independent. They’ve even gotten the President to give them a speech. Not so sure I wouldn’t lump them together though, friendly media describes them as sister organizations[18]. What do you think? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're looking at. I found very little of substantive value about TPA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Sphilbrick has a good point:
  Either it's important enough to justify revisiting the standalone article about Charlie Kirk or it's too minor to mention.
In addition to Turning Point USA Charlie Kirk is a highly successful, accomplished entrepreneur; that has created organizations in multiple industries; easily Manages and Operates Large Organizations at 26 Years of age; on Forbes 30 under 30 list for 2018; is a New York Times Bestselling Author; Editor at Large for a national magazine; Columnist on several sizeable media outlets; Speaker at National level conventions; Guest Commentator on numerous media outlets; International Conservative Celebrity; and Social Media Influencer (Top 10 most engaged Twitter accounts).--MaximusEditor (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Is the phrase "intended to target Democrats" mentioned in the organization's mission or by-laws? Where did that terminology originate? RS?? Atsme Talk 📧 06:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
While it seems that the conversation about this section has taken a slight lull at the moment, and that the conversation about Charlie Kirk getting his own page needs to be revisited soon(since it has been revealed there seems to be more support for him getting his own page then previously thought). I am going to implement the proposed changes for the corresponding 2020 election section from BeyondMyKen. The RFC was started as a result of actions I made in trying to clean up the articles formatting, this RFC strictly concentrated on the 2020 election section, I'm also looking to reformat the 2016 election section and interference in student gov section as well. But this is a start.Eruditess (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
The edit you just made is fine, but you do not have a consensus to "clean up" the other sections, so please do not do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
The removal of off topic material was good. The material should be moved as discussed above since it will keep the hierarchy correct. This was all newly added material so lack of consensus means remove, not retain. Springee (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
"As per the discussion above". Is there a consensus in the discussion above. I don;t think so. Any and all edits made to this artricle should be made only with consensus, to avoid the whitewashing attemts that have been going on for weeks now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Again, if the content is new but lacks consensus then it should be removed a consensus can be established for how it would be added. That is policy per WP:NOCON. At best it appears we have a consensus that the TPA material should not be under TPUSA's 2020 campaign section but, if included in this article, should be under Kirk's subsection since it isn't something TPUSA is doing. Again, if there is no consensus for how the material should be handled then we have a WP:NOCON state. Per WP:NOCON, "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." This would mean roll these changes back to before the content was added.
I vehemently disagree that such a consensus exists, and will working very hard to avoid any such changes being made along those lines. The whitewashing of this article is simply not going to happen on my watch. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
You all are dropping the ball on the whitewashing while arguing on this page.[19] Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't think you get it. This is newly added material. (EDIT: I see this is not newly added content. I confused it with some of the other newly added content which was recently disputed. Thus it is assumed to have consensus for inclusion. I agree we have no-consensus for how to correct the current location. Perhaps a RfC is needed) If consensus doesn't exist for how it is added then we have a no consensus and policy says it goes out until we have an consensus for how to add it. Your comment about whitewashing is borderline battleground. Springee (talk) 02:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Founder Charlie Kirk

The vast majority of this section seems to be a list of unrelated partisan-sources factoids intended to portray the founder negatively. The level of detail is unnecessary and not related to the content of the article at all. If there must be a section on the founder, shouldn’t it be a simple bio and not read like a hit piece? — Preceding unsigned comment added by O.Goethe (talk • contribs) 03:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@O.Goethe:, Well-sourced material complies with the WP:BLP policy even if it seems negative in tone. Previous discussions have come to the conclusion that the organization is not highly-distinguished from the founder and therefore the material on the founder is WP:DUE. Please state reasons why you think this prior consensus should be overturned before making large removals of sourced content. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Being part of the stable version of the text is assumed consensus for inclusion. I think removing it all at once was the sort of thing that is likely to get reverted. However, I think we could reasonably debate some of these as individual points, especially since many of these details are unrelated to TPUSA. That said, the legacy material should be discussed on a case by case basis. Many of the "Kirk said X" type comments appear to be his personal opinion, not statements from TPUSA. As such they aren't DUE for inclusion here. If they would be DUE in a Kirk BLP might still be debatable as the laundry list concern is also valid here. My feeling is, in general, if the edit doesn't explain why it should be included in the context of the section or parent article, it's probably not due. Springee (talk) 11:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by O.Goethe (talk • contribs) 11:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
The cited source for one of the Kirk-said-this sentences, inserted by BeŻet, is akspticalhuman.com (Anton Dybal). Is there some doubt that this is a blog and that WP:BLPSPS is relevant? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I think a ProPublica report on Kirk's salary belongs in his section. It's fairly basic bio info. It also ties into how TPUSA has become bigger.[20] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I disagree, especially the part about the value of his home. Unless we have RSs making an issue of Kirk's salary why would this be DUE in the article? Springee (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
ProPublica is a reliable source, one of the most reliable in fact. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
This isn't a question of reliability but DUE. Why is Kirk's personal information like the value of his home being mentioned in the article? Do we have sources saying this is a controversial thing like say the CEO of a company that's hardly ever made a profit getting a $1b pay package? The whole section on Kirk is filled with issues like this. Remember, just because a fact is verifiable doesn't mean it's DUE. Springee (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't mind if we remove his incorrect statements about Cuba and small businesses as indeed they might be considered not WP:DUE, however things like his incorrect statement about the "We want Trump" chants which was later retweeted by the president of United States are quite noteworthy. BeŻet (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
WP:FART stills applies even in the case of a POTUS. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
The sourcing for that paragraph is very poor. Fact checkers are generally not acceptable to establish WEIGHT for inclusion. I also do not believe that "A Skeptical Human" is reliable source. It looks like a single person blog. The Aug 2019 claim against google and the Feb 2020 claim against Pelosi also seem like undue material. We need to remember that even if that material is DUE in an article about Kirk, this is an article about TPUSA so the material needs to be something that directly impacts TPUSA, not just something Kirk said outside of the TPUSA context (this is not saying the material would or would not be DUE in an Kirk BLP). Personally I think there is enough content here for a short article on Kirk which would avoid some of the questions regarding "is this related to TPUSA or just Kirk". Springee (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Springee and Emir. It seems you’re able to explain the issues I have with this section better than I am, and I’m glad you both chimed in. It seems like we’re moving towards significantly trimming this section down. O.Goethe (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I would suggest picking one paragraph at a time, suggest why you think it should be removed and see if you get any push back. If not, then remove it. Springee (talk) 03:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Charlie Kirks section is riddled with WP:UNDUE material. I agree it should be trimmed down immensely. Springee is correct in mentioning it best to edit one paragraph at a time, as to prevent one massive revert, and make it more modular for other editors to give more particular feedback. I will give the section a closer look as well and add some edits where necessary.Eruditess (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Secret Program Statement in Lead

@Nomoskedasticity and Sychonic: regarding this edit [[21]]. In looking at the sources I think the proposed change makes sense. The NPR article doesn't support the claim of a secret program. The Chronicle claims the program is secret yet they cite a speech where Kirk talks about it. The Chronicle doesn't really support the "secret" claim. Sychonic's version of the text is more neutral but I think it has a flaw discussed below. In the previous discussion above it was suggested that a number of other sources back the "secret plan" claim but a review of the offered sources doesn't support that. Several note that TPUSA's donor list is secret. Others say that Kirk denies that there is a "secret plan". I personally do not think this material is DUE for the lead but that is another matter. Currently there is only one source for the "secret program" claim so such a statement should be neutrally attributed. It would probably be best to say something like "support student campaigns" or similar. So the current text is problematic because the "secret plan" claim is not attributed and honestly not well supported by the source. Conversely, Sychonic's text suggests that a plan to influence student body elections is attributed to only the Chronicle. If the "secret" part is removed then we have a well supported statement (again we need the phrasing to be impartial). I would suggest a meeting in the middle. Springee (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turning_Point_USA/Archive_2&oldid=1131534669"