Talk:Turning Point USA

Sourcing in "Finance" section

An "additional citation needed" tag has been lingering on the end of the list of donors for the Finance section in hopes to add any "reliable" sources, I have looked further into the current cited sources and they do not hold up to Wikipedia standard for WP:BESTSOURCES. One issue with the current sourcing for donors is that 3/4 of the donors are cited by a site called PRWatch (Run by the CMD). It's sister site SourceWatch (The only site from CMD on the RSP) is classified as WP:GUNREL. PRWatch is not listed on the WP:RSP. It is not even listed anywhere on CMD's article specifically under it's online projects? If you search the RSP archive for any prior discussion regarding "PRWatch", one of the results (a discussion actually about sister-site "SourceWatch') pulls a statement by a woman named Lisa Graves who self discloses through her editor name that she works for CMD, she is the President of the Board of the Center for Media and Democracy, and stated the following in the discussion.

"that our (SourceWatch) articles are more like "blogs," which is not the case and in fact our PRWatch site is where our blogs are posted, not SourceWatch".

The intro to the list of donors on the TPUSA article says:

" According to the Center for Media and Democracy, donors include:"

This is misleading, it should be "According to PRWatch". PRWatch being a blog site fails WP:BestSources and it's cited sourcing should be removed along with the content.

The next issue with sourcing is from an article from the State-Journal Register, this particular cited article has a disclaimer at the top of the article for being an opinion piece. Once again failing WP:BESTSOURCES. This must be removed.

The last source cited in the group is from an archived site called "Conservative Transparency", when I tried to go to the live site I got a warning on my browser that it was an unsecure site, and that Conservative Transparency is run by something called The Bridge Project. When I went The Bridge Project site, I was also alerted the connection was unsecure, and found that the latest article they posted was in 2019. There was no information on who published the articles on their site. This is bogus and fails WP:BESTSOURCES.

I am going to modify the section by removing the donors names out of the list format and then adding any remaining reliably sourced donors (if any) in more of a paragraph format much like it is over on PragerU's article page. Eruditess (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

A non-opinion RS reported the Rauner contributions, so I re-added them. Also, I tagged the Uihlien contribution for a better source needed per your question about that source. Eruditess, perhaps you could ask RSN about PRWatch? Llll5032 (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the Rauner sourcing. We will give it some time to see if any editors provide a better source for Uihlien. As for the PRWatch cited sourcing, we still have more issues that are problematic. One of the main issues that was discussed over on PragerU's page a little bit ago (regarding the exact same issue) was that most editors felt a singularly sourced donation didn't warrant inclusion. Most of the editors involved in that discussion echoed: if a donor has multiple WP:RS articles outlining their donation then it is notable enough to keep in the article, that just mention of a donation alone doesn't merit inclusion in the article and doesn't pass WP:10YT. With the exception of founding donations as it is part of History, if a donor is only outlined from one source we should remove it. Most the PRWatch sources are for people who aren't notable enough to have articles/links. Let's keep any donors with multiple RS coverage and remove any that only are sourced from one source such as PRWatch. Eruditess (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Eruditess, are you referring to this discussion? If there was a consensus there, it appeared to be about using good WP:SECONDARY sources rather than primary sources, not the number. Llll5032 (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

These responses absolutely appear to specifically focus on the fact that the PragerU citations had been covered by multiple sources:

"It is relevant if enough RS say it is relevant, per WP:BESTSOURCES, WP:INDY, and WP:PROPORTION." --Llll5032

"It may be OK to say where the original funding came from but after it doesn't seem to really bring much to the article." --Springee

"These donors are specifically mentioned in general articles about PragerU, which means that multiple reliable sources consider them important enough to merit coverage." --dlthewave

The donors have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, making it WP:DUE for inclusion. --FormalDude

And I even comment myself on that discussion that this was what consensus looked like:

What I'm seeing from the responses are:

"A) If there is significant information covered in RS it should be included, and all sources right now in PragerU possess multiple RS to warrant inclusion.

-I agree, if multiple sources cover a donation, it could be deemed as notable." (Note the difference on TPUSA where all donations only have 1 citation which is not a WP:GREL source.)

Nobody was arguing for the inclusion of primary sourcing.

Bottom line, a blog site that is just posting findings from public IRS documents doesn't constitute inclusion, if that is the only citation that discusses those donations. If it were covered in other/multiple WP:RS than yes it would indicate that it is notable. But that simply is not the case here and it still stands that the singular sourced citations from blog sites should be removed. Eruditess (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

You tagged Springee and me, but not @FormalDude or @Dlthewave in quotations from them, so I am tagging them for this discussion. Llll5032 (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

We have no responses from any of the pinged editors, the logic from the editor's response still remains the same and unchanged (I don't know what they could have said to chance their stance besides a full contradiction), all the quoted editors in my above post placed emphasis on the fact that if enough RS cover a donation, then it was relevant enough for inclusion. So for the single sourced donations from "PRWatch" need to be removed. Eruditess (talk) 03:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Have you considered asking RSN about PRWatch, or looking for additional sources? Llll5032 (talk) 09:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

After doing another in-depth dive of additional reliable sources covering TPUSA donations, I have found the following:

This Guardian article does mention Donor's Trust & Bradley Foundation donating to Turning Point USA. (I will note that the Guardian is WP:GREL, however there is a note on the RSP that some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics). The Guardian source also does not disclose an amount for the Bradley foundation donation, it just generalizes that they did donate a large sum .

There are no other sources (minus a clone PRWatch article by the same author (Alex Kotch) and published on the same exact date as the PRWatch article under the same CMD Umbrella) that discuss any of the other mentioned donors.

It is not necessary for an RSN discussion for PRWatch as we already have Lisa Graves (the President of the Board of the Center for Media and Democracy) disclose on a separate RSN for Sourcewatch that PRWatch is their (CMD's) blogsite. As well the main point being made is that reliability is not the issue here, as we know the issue is the lack of RS covering specific donations.(Precedence set on PragerU's donations talk page discussion).

Since there are no other articles discussing the remaining donors, and the articles that we have found are not very strong (Guardian being problematic within the political sphere as well as not listing an amount for Bradley Foundation, PRWatch being a blog site and unusable). I think a good compromise would be to keep Ed Uihlein Family Foundation, Donor's trust and the Bradley foundation in the article as donors. Remove the rest and take it out of a bulleted list format and make it in a paragraph like on PragerU. Eruditess (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the Guardian article and for noting the WP:GREL rating. I added its figure, in brief, for a contribution from Donors Trust. It could be attributed if there is a neutrality concern. Would any other editors prefer adding more sources to confirm DUEWEIGHT in this section, or is there some consensus that PRWatch is adequate for the figures, which have been in the article since 2020? Llll5032 (talk) 07:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I like the stated compromise above. The list of donors doesn't add any value to the article without context. Anybody seeking donor information can just go access the public records (Which is what PRWatch does). Having a site like PRWatch just regurgitate information from the IRS public filings doesn't indicate notability. Maybe if a donor made such a significant amount that it was covered in multiple "reliable" sources (Which seems to be the basis of this discussion). Or if a donation was a historic benchmark it would be notable for inclusion. Please remove the single sourced donations. MaximusEditor (talk) 06:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

"Israel-Hamas war" section is questionable

The Israel Hamas section does not contain any actual information about TPUSA's official views on the Israel-Hamas war. It does speak about how of it's 254 volunteer ambassadors, some (article was very vague on who or how many) are split on the controversial Israel-Hamas war topic. I don't know why this information was included? I think the whole section is irrelevant and should be deleted. Since an accurate title for the section would be more along the lines of "TPUSA ambassadors split on Israel-Hamas war". I added a "better source needed" template because even if it is attributed to Semafor, it is not a strong enough source to warrant inclusion and if no better sources can be found ( A search about TPUSA and anti-semetism brings up mainly aritlces that discuss the orginization's termination of Morgan Ariel for being antisemitic and no other coverage about the views on TPUSA's ambassadors.) I will delete the section. MaximusEditor (talk) 06:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Is Semafor not a strong source? Perhaps it could be asked at WP:RSN. Llll5032 (talk) 07:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

If the group doesn't have an official position on the topic and if the sources covering it are weak in terms of weight then I would say remove it. Springee (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think non-profit organizations legally could take a position on issues such as Israel Hamas war? According to WP:GREL Politifact source : " "It (TPUSA) does have this checkered or spotted history with regard to individual members or local leaders in Turning Point USA making racist or otherwise problematic comments… but it’s not the ideology of the group itself." - In regard to being a racist organization. This Poltifact article directly states that TPUSA does not share the views of its individual members. This negates the Semafor article having relevance to this article subject. Having "ambassadors" clash over a divisive topic does not merit inclusion. Semafor is not a strong source. The whole section is not relevant, take it out. Eruditess (talk) 08:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Why not ask WP:RSN if Semafor is a RS? Llll5032 (talk) 08:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

The reason we aren't going to ask the RSN is because no matter the outcome of Semafor's reliability, it wouldn't be relevant. Just as opinions from volunteer TPUSA ambassadors are not relevant to this article. This is a case of WP:ONUS - "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."

The consensus of this discussion has determined that the opinions of TPUSA ambassadors does not improve the article, as Politifact article linked above has proven, TPUSA does not share the views of its individual members (in this case Ambassadors). Will remove material promptly. MaximusEditor (talk) 23:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

1964 Civil Rights Act and Martin Luther King Jr section

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

I'm skeptical of this reasoning; when articles about the founding leader of an organization expressing extreme views also draw attention to the leader's organization, I think it seems ok for at least a single sentence mention in organization's article.

There is certainly more than one source in existence that makes this connection too. Just came here after reading several articles about it. I may not get around to adding it but wanted to express skepticism publicly. toobigtokale (talk) 21:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your input, I would challenge the idea that there are lots of quality reliable sources covering Kirk's remarks, and that Kirk's remarks are as you said "extreme views".

When I did a google search of "Charlie Kirk Civil Rights", The first article is a WP:GREL Wired.com article, (It's the one sole cited article in the problematic Civil Rights section currently referencing one relatable fact; that Kirk made the remarks at the TPUSA Americafest event). The following google search results were a litany of either articles that directly cited the Wired.com article as their source and/or were opinion pieces. With all the sources being opinion pieces and/or based off the only reliable article that is already included here, I can't agree with you that there is a lot of quality coverage from reputable sources.

As for the idea that he holds "extreme views", I think that since it doesn't actually state anywhere in the RS that his views are extreme inferring that they are extreme would be original research/WP:SYNTH. Kirk had opinions about MLK jr. -“MLK was awful,” Kirk said. “He's not a good person. He said one good thing he actually didn't believe.” He has opinions about the Civil Rights acts. Saying “We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s.” I stand beside my previous statements above, the section has nothing to do with TPUSA, I can't entertain the idea that Kirk's quotes are extreme views and that it improves the TPUSA article in any way. Eruditess (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I added NBC News, another WP:GREL source. Llll5032 (talk) 04:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding this NBC article just supports my argument for removal off this page even further.

The basis of this discussion is that the "1964 Civil Rights Act and Martin Luther King Jr" section is about Charlie Kirk's remarks regarding the section subject matter, which has zero relevance to TPUSA. This NBC article doesn't make any connection for the comments made about MLK/Civil Rights acts and TPUSA. It does however highlight that the comments were made on Charlie Kirks PodCast, separate entity from TPUSA. Llll5032, can you justify how an article saying Kirk made comments on his personal podcast belongs on TPUSA article?

Your addition of: "Some Republicans criticized racial comments by Kirk amidst conflicts in early 2024 between Turning Point and Republican Party leaders." is breaching WP:SYNTH, it doesn't state that Republican party leaders had issue with TPUSA anywhere in the article. The article does say that Darrel Scott "expressed concerns" to Trump about Kirks comments (the ones made on his podcast), that is it. Eruditess (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The NBC article, which names Turning Point 18 times, cites disputes with various Republicans about Ronna McDaniel, an app, and Kirk's conduct and comments. Llll5032 (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

In those 18 times Turning Point was mentioned, there is not any mention or connection from those Republicans making criticism of Kirk with TPUSA? That is why you trying to add a sentence in the article that there was, when there isn't is SYNTH. You took two separate facts:

1)That Charlie Kirk made comments on his podcast about MLK jr and the Civil rights act.

&

2)That some republicans think that some funds that went to TPUSA could have been funds that could have been put towards the republican party.

These two facts are different form eachother.

The information about Ronna McDaniel talks about her meeting with Trump and asking him if he was aware of his comments from Kirk's pod cast? -- No mention of TPUSA.

The app is mentioned about Tyler Bowyer and in connection to Turning Point Action -- No mention of TPUSA

Kirk's conduct and comments... From his pod cast -- no mention of TPUSA.

Can you show me where in the NBC article it states TPUSA is under pressure because of Kirks comments... I think that is what you are trying to interpret from the article.

Just copy and paste the quote that links the two. Eruditess (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The short sentence you removed said, "Some Republicans criticized racial comments by Kirk amidst conflicts in early 2024 between Turning Point and Republican Party leaders." It follows the emphasis of the NBC article, which has examples of Kirk's racial comments and also the Turning Point spokesperson acknowledging the conflict with the RNC: "When you take on the RNC, you’re bound to make a few enemies,” Andrew Kolvet, a Turning Point spokesperson, said, adding the organization was “warned” in recent weeks “to brace for” Kirk and the group to take hits “as a parting shot from the old guard at the RNC. Later in the article, the same Turning Point spokesperson also makes a statement defending Kirk. Llll5032 (talk) 04:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused by your claim that there is supposedly no connection whatsoever between a group's founding leader and his group. Articles that discuss this event very frequently mention his role in TPUSA. toobigtokale (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

If you are saying that reliable articles discuss Kirk's role, then you can put whatever is said about his role in the article. If you can find WP:RS articles that make a direct connection for as you said, "the founding leader of an organization expressing extreme views also draw attention to the leader's organization", put it in by all means. But I can't find any actual quote from the cited sources that say there is a connection (the word "extreme views" isn't even printed in the source), that is a determination you made after reading the article. There is coverage about Kirk critiquing MLK jr. and the civil rights act on his podcast, but to make an editorial choice to say in this TPUSA wiki article that because he made comments on his podcast, it is affecting the organization would be SYNTH - ("do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.") it just isn't stated in any reliable article. Eruditess (talk) 03:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying there's no connection between a group's founding leader and his group. The question at hand is whether or not Kirk's comments should be put on Turning Point USA's page. Comments made on Kirk's podcast seem far more fitting to be put on his own page, rather than this organization, especially considering that The Charlie Kirk Show is not part of Turning Point USA (as his page even states). I'd agree this section should be removed but the comments by Kirk be put on his own page. AstralNomad (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Someone is saying that. "The removed content was only applicable to Charlie Kirk, no relevance to TPUSA"

I'm not engaging much more with this topic because it's not a high priority for me, but my skepticism about this has not changed. toobigtokale (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

It's pretty simple and straight forward, if the information added to an article directly pertains to subject of the article (in this case TPUSA) then add it, if not keep it out. There has been previous discussion on this talk page (When Charlie Kirk was being split out to his own article) that set precedence that stuff that he says or does as head of TPUSA should be listed here and stuff that he says as his own personal opinions or rants belong on his personal page. I think there was an issue with editors clogging this page with every single provocative thing Kirk said and so it has been addressed. Move the MLK and civil race comments to his page. Keep Kirk's personal views off this page. MaximusEditor (talk) 07:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

For WP:DUEWEIGHT the decision should be based on how much the cited RS say about Turning Point. If Turning Point is named with substantial context in the reliable source, then the source is likely to belong in this article. Turning Point is named 18 times in the NBC article and 7 times in the Wired article, so they appear to be DUE. Llll5032 (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Llll5032, DUEWEIGHT says "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those source". The keyword here is "viewpoints". Not "words". The word "Turning Point" alone isn't a viewpoint, therefore a word use count per this NBC article has no relevance in a section labeled "1964 Civil Rights Act and Martin Luther King Jr section", specifically in this case unless there is a sentence that contains both Turning Point and "Civil Rights Act" and/or "MLK Jr". There is not. Not once is there anywhere in the NBC article that references Turning Point USA and anything to do with the Civil Rights Act and/or MLK Jr. Therefore to include it in this article as such would be WP:SYNTH. Trying to use this NBC article to give weight to somehow link comments Charlie Kirk made to TPUSA is flat out false and out of context. DUEWEIGHT is only applicable with correct context. Having said that, does it belong on Charlie Kirk's personal page. Yes absolutely.

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS says " The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." & " Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article". Talking about how many times the word "TPUSA" is used is void of context period.

Also we can refer to WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE, which states " Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what the sources express or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources." " Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article".

Now the NBC article does have context with comments made on Charlie Kirk's podcast. "As Turning Point USA flourishes, Kirk simultaneously has another venture that is making waves throughout the right — his podcast. A Turning Point spokesperson provided NBC News with internal data showing that it is being downloaded between 500,000 and 750,000 times each day. It’s ranked No. 13 on Apple Podcasts for news." Information about comments made on Kirk's podcast belongs on Charlie Kirk's personal page. TPUSA article is not improved by quoting Kirk's podcast comments. Removing the content and moving it over to Charlie's personal page is a great compromise based in previous discussion and precedence on this talk page. I will be removing the content and moving it over to Kirk's page. MaximusEditor (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that information needs to stick to the emphasis of cited sources per WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Because at least one of the WP:BESTSOURCES, NBC, describes the racial comments in the context of Turning Point's conflict with the RNC and McDaniel, perhaps the information could be better included in a chronology of the group instead of specifically a civil rights section. Llll5032 (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Additional WP:GREL sources have described Turning Point's part in the successful effort to oust McDaniel and its conflicts with some Republicans this year, which were in the sentence that was deleted. Llll5032 (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Turning Point has no direct association with the RNC or the Republican Party because they are a non-profit. TPUSA is a 501c3 organization, and the IRS states that such organizations are prohibited from "directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)(3)_organization

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/the-restriction-of-political-campaign-intervention-by-section-501c3-tax-exempt-organizations#:~:text=Under%20the%20Internal%20Revenue%20Code,candidate%20for%20elective%20public%20office.

TPUSA has an obvious conservative agenda, but saying that the organization is tied with the RNC is an incorrect statement and would be against the law for them to do so. If Charlie Kirk is making comments about the RNC, the Republican party, or making endorsements of a political candidate, that is his own personal belief and cannot be representative of TPUSA itself. These respective Wikipedia pages should reflect that difference. AstralNomad (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Do any of the secondary RS describing the conflict over McDaniel address that question? Llll5032 (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

TPUSA can't make political statements and can't get into "conflicts" with the RNC. This is common sense. However, Turning Point Action can, that is why we have a separate article for information pertaining to Turning Point Action. You do not want to put erroneous information on this article that could confuse readers into thinking TPUSA was breaching its non-profit 501(c)(3) status.

From the AP article you linked/cited the author of the article does not make it clear that the "Restoring National Confidence" event (which is the reference between the vague "Turning Point" and the RNC" in the article) was hosted by TPACTION. Which is cleared up by this Politco article which gives correct context. With that correct context, any information you want to include about Turning Point being in conflict with the RNC belongs on the Turning Point Action page not here and any information that pertains to comments made on Charlie Kirk's podcast belong on his personal article also not here. So I'll be removing the "Civil rights act/MLK" section and moving the content over to Kirk's page. MaximusEditor (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

As you acknowledge, RS often do not make the distinction between the groups that you are making. Even in the Politico source you cite favorably, the naming is mostly "Turning Point", for example: "Turning Point, the youth-oriented advocacy group founded by Charlie Kirk, the conservative activist radio show host with a massive following, has long been one of the sharpest thorns in the RNC’s side." Editors were divided about making a separate Turning Point Action article in 2021 because of the interconnectedness of the groups. But the creator of the article agreed that "Naturally there is overlap between these two orgs, and I'm definitely for keeping any notable occurrences of overlap on TPUSA", and no editors at that article's talk page, which has included you, have yet disagreed there. Llll5032 (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Tyler Bowyer

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